Preamble

The House met at half-past
Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Trident Missiles

Mr. Bob Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the representations he has received regarding the proposed purchase of Trident missile systems.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Francis Pym): I have received some 70 letters and two petitions since 15 July when I announced the Government's decision to acquire the Trident missile system.

Mr. Cryer: Do not the mole leaks from the Treasury indicate that there must be cuts in defence expenditure? Was not that view massively endorsed at the excellent demonstration last Sunday in Trafalgar Square? Is it not disgraceful that the Government are still contemplating spending a massive sum of money on Trident while at the same time announcing cuts in council house building programmes? Is it not time that the Government put people's homes before nuclear weapons

Mr. Pym: The leak demonstrated nothing of the sort. As I indicated immediately that it occurred, no decisions have been taken. Routine discussions within the Government are taking place, and in due course announcements will be made. We shall increase our defence expenditure. We shall maintain our deterrent capability, both nuclear and conventional.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not regrettable that, following the shambles at the

recent Labour Party conference in Blackpool, Labour Members should breach the traditional long-standing bipartisan approach to the British nuclear deterrent? Will my right hon. Friend explain to the unilateralists that if the country were to follow their course of action we should place ourselves at the mercy not only of the Russians but of the Iraqis, the Gaddafis and others likely to acquire nuclear weapons in the 1980s?

Mr. Pym: I take a serious view of the line taken at the Labour Party conference. It meant that the Labour Party was prepared to envisage a policy that would remove our deterrent and our protection. I do not believe that the people of Britain would ever support that.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the Trident missile project have the full-hearted enthusiastic support of all Treasury Ministers?

Mr. Pym: Yes, Sir. It was a Government decision. The Government stand by their decision, which applies to all members.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the Conservative side of the House at least, we consider it to be his prime duty to protect council and all other houses, and that the best way to do so is to ensure that the nation is properly defended? Is he further aware that he will have our fullest support when ensuring that defence expenditure is not only maintained, but increased?

Mr. Pym: I agree with my hon. Friend. If our defences are not adequate, there will not be anything worth defending.

Mr. Rodgers: Is it not bland of the Secretary of State to dismiss the information released to the press last week as evidence of a routine discussion? I remind him of our debate in this Chamber exactly six months ago, when some of us said that he was living in a dreamland if he believed that his plans for spending could be sustained in the light of the economic position. I remind him also of what he said to the Conservative Party conference less than three weeks ago and the firm commitment that he then gave to his existing programme. Is not the truth of the matter that the whole of our defence planning is now in a mess?
Is not the credibility not only of the Government as a whole but, regrettably, of the right hon. Gentleman himself, at stake?

Mr. Pym: No Sir. It is reasonable for a Chancellor of the Exchequer—indeed, it would be surprising if he did not—to seek to carry out Government policy at a lesser cost. There is an annual round of talks about public expenditure within the Government, and that is taking place at present. Announcements will be made in due course. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that, as he knows, we spent substantially more on defence last year than during the previous year, following a series of declines; that this year we are spending more than last year; and that next year we shall spend more than this year. That is the position. If the Opposition had responsibility for defence—if we understand their position, which is somewhat confused—the defences of Britain would deteriorate at an alarming rate and security could not be guaranteed.

Rapid Deployment Force

Mr. Aitken: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made, in consultation with NATO Allies, towards the establishment of a rapid deployment force.

Mr. Pym: I welcome the establishment by the United States of a rapid deployment force as a valuable contribution to deterring further Soviet encroachment. The United Kingdom will do whatever it can to support the United States; and, as my lion. Friend will know, we are considering how we can enhance our own rapid deployment capability.

Mr. Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent dangerous events in the Gulf war have emphasised yet again how necessary a rapid deployment force might be as an insurance policy for our national security? As the American rapid deployment force seems to be taking shape very slowly indeed, will my right hon. Friend press our European allies and, indeed, our own forces, to make preparations for this?

Mr. Pym: Yes, and, as I made clear in the White Paper, we are considering ways in which we can increase our flexibility

and capability to act outside the NATO boundaries if that should prove necessary. In fact, as my hon. Friend knows, we have two Royal Navy ships in the Gulf at present, available if necessary to protect our merchant shipping. But I believe that the strategic frontiers of Europe lie far beyond the NATO boundaries and that it is necessary for us and our allies to do what we can to be able to act in a military capacity if circumstances make that desirable.

Mr. Cook: Does the Secretary of State accept that he will have the loyal support of many Labour Members in his efforts to bring the overspending by his Department under control? Does he also recognise that at a time when the television channels show British sailors playing cards because we cannot afford the fuel to enable them to sail their vessels, it is nothing but the purest folly to pretend that Britain could create a force that could go anywhere in the world, at any time and fight anyone?

Mr. Pym: I disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. No one has pretended that we have the capability that he has just described to go anywhere, with any force, at any time. I have always made it clear that, due to our economic circumstances, it is not possible for us to make other than a modest contribution outside the NATO boundaries. However, to the extent that it can be increased, improved and made more versatile and flexible, I think that is an advantage, and I shall work in that direction. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the spending of my Department. I am taking all the steps that I can—obviously—to cut out unnecessary and wasteful expenditure. All Ministers do that, and it is going on in my Department very vigorously.

Mr. Trippier: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the mobilisation and deployment of the Reserve Services in the NATO exercise Crusader?

Mr. Pym: There is a later question on that subject, so perhaps I had better not pursue it now.

Mr. Roper: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it it now six months since he said in his White Paper that he was considering various measures


to improve the mobility of British forces outside the NATO area? Will he tell the House what decisions have been made about that, what costs will fall on the defence budget as a result of that, and whether that expenditure will be in addition to the 3 per cent. increase that he has committed to NATO, or whether it will mean a further reduction in the funds available for the defence of NATO Europe?

Mr. Pym: I should like to say two things in reply: first, the cost will fall within our budget; secondly, what I am envisaging, and always have, is the use of our existing forces. I am not thinking of creating a separate force, in the sense that the United States is doing, that is able to go to a certain part of the world. What I am trying to create are the circumstances in which we can put together, as appropriate, perhaps a parachute capability or some other capability that can be used in particular circumstances. What we are looking at is how we can bring together a wider range of capabilities, move them more quickly to wherever they may be required and whether we can stockpile. That work continues.

Trident Missiles

Mr. Archie Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report progress on the adoption of the Trident missile.

Mr. Pym: Exchanges of letters between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America, were signed on 30 September, extending the provisions of the Polaris sales agreement of 1963 to cover the supply of the Trident I weapon system. Copies of these letters are in the Vote Office. Detailed planning of the programme is in hand and the procurement of certain materials has started.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that news will be welcome to Conservative Members, particularly in the light of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—who I see on the Opposition Front Bench—that we should unilaterally disarm? In those circumstances, does not that mean that Labour Members

should cease to be called "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition"?

Mr. Pym: As I have already said this afternoon, I am concerned about the extent to which the Labour Party appears to be going in the direction of unilateralism. I think that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) has always been of that school of thought, and I understand those who take that view, but it remains the view of the Government, and it was the view of all previous Governments of all parties, that this is a necessary part of our deterrent. Indeed, the NATO strategy, which is the essence of our defensive system, contains a nuclear element which all the allies support and which all the allies believe would be extremely damaging if it were not there. Therefore, I cannot say too strongly how much I believe talk and the thought of unilateralism at this stage in our history to be unwise and unsound.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Did the Secretary of State read the recent MORI public opinion poll in The Sunday Times, which showed that a clear majority of the British people are in favour of spending less on arms and more on housing? Is he aware of the widespread and growing feeling that it is indecent to spend £5,000 million on Trident, while at the same time cutting expenditure on the homeless. the sick, the unemployed and children?

Mr. Pym: I feel exactly the same about that as the hon. Gentleman does. I want to spend more on housing and social issues, and so does everyone, but unless they are protected, and unless we have a defence that will deter an aggressor from starting a war, we will find not only that we have a war, but that we have lost our freedoms.

Mr. Beith: How much will the cost of an independent nuclear deterrent be at the expense of essential naval and other Service commitments?

Mr. Pym: Just as Polaris was fitted into the ordinary routine budget, so will Trident I be. Although massively expensive, it is not as expensive as the Tornado programme, but it will fit into the programme and therefore will not be at the expense of other things. Whatever weapons system one buys one can only spend that money


once, and the object of the expenditure and the defence budget is to have at the end of it, along with our allies, a capability that is comprehensive, complete and effective in order to preserve the peace. In our view, and in the view of our allies, Trident I will be a great addition to our deterrent, and therefore a major contribution to peace.

Mr. Farr: While supporting my right hon. Friend's decision on Trident, may I ask him to make certain that as much as possible of the sophisticated back-up equipment necessary to make the system effective is British made and produced by British firms?

Mr. Pym: Yes. I had many discussions with British industry before this decision was taken. Now that the decision has been taken, I can tell my hon. Friend that more than 70 per cent. of the capital cost will be money spent in the United Kingdom.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest estimates of expenditure on nuclear weapons.

Mr. Pym: The main items of expenditure on nuclear forces are the running costs of the Polaris force at £165 million this year; the Chevaline improvement programme, which is now nearing completion, at a total cost of about £1,000 million: and the Trident programme at an estimated total capital cost, spread over 15 years, of the order of £4½ billion to £5 billion.

Mr. Evans: At a time when the Government are introducing massive public expenditure cuts over the whole range of social services, why are they unilaterally increasing expenditure on nuclear weapons? Would not their efforts be better used to maintain the peace of the world through a non-proliferation treaty? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the war in Iran and Iraq would be better if both sides had nuclear weapons?

Mr. Pym: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this increase in expenditure is not unilateral. The Alliance as a whole believes that it is necessary to spend more. Of course, as I have said, I share the hon. Gentleman's desire to spend more on other things that will be socially advantageous.
The object of defence is not only to protect the realm, but to maintain our security at the lowest possible cost. We do not want to spend a pound more than we have to. We are not attempting to match in expenditure or weapons systems the threat that faces us, but we do intend to have, and we shall continue to achieve, a degree of security and safety that will deter an aggressor and therefore preserve the peace. If only the arms control negotiations would yield results we would he able to do it even more cheaply, but, whatever the level, if it is the minimum level for our defences, that is what it must be. We hope that before long we can arrive at a situation in which the kind of spending which the hon. Gentleman, myself and everyone wants can happen.

Mr. Wall: As all the major Warsaw Pact defence manoeuvres end in practising for nuclear war, would not that question be better directed to the Kremlin? Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm our loyalty to NATO and to the NATO Treaty, both in conventional and nuclear weapons?

Mr. Pym: The biggest exercise of all did not end in the nuclear issue, because it was designed for a different purpose. I do not think that any hon. Member is in the slightest doubt about our adhesion to NATO, including the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) who is at present speaking for the Opposition on defence. I endorse and confirm that we strongly support the NATO aim of annual increases of about 3 per cent., because we believe that that is necessary. During the Government's first year in office we achieved that increase, and we hope that we shall achieve it this year. However, we cannot at this stage say what the outcome for the current year will be.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that the only credibility that he can claim for his argument against nuclear disarmament is that NATO nuclear arms are always technically inferior to those possessed by the Russians? If that is the case he can claim that he would want to negotiate from a position of strength, but if he is saying that British arms are superior to those of the Soviet Union, how can he maintain his argument against disarmament?

Mr. Pym: There is a later question on arms control, but I am not sure that I followed the drift of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I have not made any comment this afternoon about the relative technical excellence of our weapons as against those of the Russians.

Sir Frederick Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Afghanistan had had a nuclear deterrent the Russians would have thought more before attempting to invade that country?

Mr. Pym: Whether or not they would have invaded, the Russians made a disastrous error of judgment in invading Afghanistan because they alerted the rest of the world to their true intentions, or at least to the fact that they are prepared to use their growing military strength for military purposes in a neutral and independent sovereign State. I do not know whether nuclear weapons would have deterred them, but I know that the Soviet Union trains its military personnel in the use of nuclear weapons as offensive weapons, and that gives cause for a great deal of concern in the House.

Mr. Rodgers: We should be clear about the Government's intentions with regard to the 3 per cent. increase in defence spending. The Secretary of State said that he could not say whether the Government would achieve a 3 per cent. increase this year. I understand that to mean that the Department is never clear whether it will underspend or overspend. Will the right hon. Gentlemen say plainly that he is still committed, as he was six months ago, to a 3 per cent. further increase in the coming financial year?

Mr. Pym: The Government remain committed to a 3 per cent. increase—this year, next year and the year after. As the right hon. Gentleman said, we cannot be certain, because we do not know whether we will overspend or underspend, but that is the aim, and we are committed to it. [Interruption.] Labour Members shake their heads, but we achieved 3 per cent. real growth last year over the previous year. If the Labour Party was in power that figure would be lower, because it gave a commitment at the time of the general election that it would reduce expenditure on defence, and at the Labour Party conference it was

made clear that that figure would be reduced still further. That should cause great anxiety throughout the country, because if that happened we would not be secure and, we would not have a defensive capability to preserve the peace. It is a serious issue.

Defence Expenditure

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has introduced to eliminate wasteful or inefficient defence expenditure.

Mr. Pym: I am determined to ensure that defence spending is geared directly to the operational capability of the Forces and that administrative overheads are reduced to the absolute minimum. I have taken a number of measures to improve efficiency and to reduce manpower. Civilian numbers have fallen by over 15,000 since April 1979.

Mr. Dubs: The Secretary of State said that he does not want to spend a pound more on defence than he has to. Will he explain why his Department is the only one that is not able to control its expenditure?

Mr. Pym: Expenditure is under control. The savings that I make in administration, and perhaps by rearranging tasks, is money saved from that use. I switch that to the use of what is described in the jargon as the "sharp end". Expenditure is under control. In the current year we have experienced a situation in which because of the shortage of civil orders, firms are delivering defence equipment more quickly than they have done before which has caused a distortion. In the moratorium I have taken steps to rein back our expenditure so that we can get as near as possible to the cash limits.

Mr. Alan Clark: While there may be different views as to what constitutes "wasteful and inefficient", the effect of the moratorium, particularly on certain small businesses, has been disruptive and harmful. I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the case of Ian Williams and Company, which has had to make a considerable part of its work force redundant, and may have to increase that scale of redundancy unless there is an announcement soon of my right hon. Friend's intentions regarding the moratorium.

Mr. Pym: I regretted having to use such a blunt instrument as a moratorium to correct the problem, which was due to a more rapid level of bill-paying than had previously been experienced. I hope to make an announcement during the next few days about the period after the moratorium. I do not think that it can or should continue in its present form, because it is too blunt. I have had discussions with different sections of industry to try to find the least damaging way from their point of view to continue after the moratorium with a strict regime to control expenditure and to bring it nearer to our cash limits.

Dr. Gilbert: Is it not becoming clearer every day that the huge increases in Service pay, with which the Conservatives tried to buy votes at the election, are being paid for at the price of cancellation, postponement and reduction of important procurements of new weapons which they need to defend themselves and the country?

Mr. Pym: No, Sir. It would be fair to say that the morale of the Services when we took office was not high—they had been through a difficult period—but I am pleased to say that it is now much better. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not simply a question of money. It is also a question of their being appreciated by the nation, by this House and by the Government. I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Adley: In the interests of useful and efficient expenditure, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there is a widespread welcome in my constituency for the order that he announced yesterday to Plessey of Christchurch? For the benefit of those who profess to be interested in creating employment, will he do his best to ensure that that example is spread further and elsewhere?

Mr. Pym: Ptarmigan meets a vital requirement as a replacement of the tactical trunk communications system for BAOR. It will provide jobs for many people for many years.

Armed Forces (Sporting Activities)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is Government policy for the Armed Forces to encourage

the development of sport; and if so, what steps he is taking to implement that policy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): Yes, Sir. We regard the promotion of sport within the Armed Forces as an important contribution to the morale, physical efficiency and public image of the Armed Forces, as well as to the quality of life within the Services. Service personnel are therefore provided with a wide variety of sports facilities. It is also our policy to allow the maximum use of our facilities by civilian sports clubs, associations and individuals, where there is no conflict with Service requirements.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that I recently went to a football match at Crossmaglen, at which, midway through the second half, some of the players and spectators were in danger of being decapitated by a British Army helicopter that was coming in to land at the side of the pitch? As this type of provocation and intimidation of young people seems to be a regular occurrence in that area. is it not about time that the British Army stopped adopting such spoilsport tactics, and also stopped occupying part of a football ground that does not belong to it?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am not aware of the hon. Gentleman's habits, sporting or otherwise. However, I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the football ground at Crossmaglen, but I can add nothing to the answers that were given to him by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 10 July.

Mr. Stoddart: If the Minister is so concerned to assist sport through the Services, why has the Services' entry to the round-the-world yacht race been cancelled?

Mr. Hayhoe: Because the sporting activities of members of the Armed Forces must be governed by the same financial restraints as apply across the whole field of expenditure.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Services have always encouraged sport? Will he consider sending congratulations to Squadron Leader George Lee on again being


selected to defend his world championship gliding title?

Mr. Hayhoe: It might be more appropriate for my hon. Friend to do that.

Armed Forces (Mobilised Strength)

Mr. Churchill: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total mobilised strength of Great Britain's Armed Forces; and what percentage of the population this represents.

Mr. Hayhoe: The total strength of the Armed Forces, including Reserves and locally entered personnel, on 31 August 1980 was 605,100. This represents approximately 1·1 per cent of the United Kingdom population.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not a matter of concern that 99 per cent of the population should be without a war role in a crisis, and without any form of weapon for self-defence? Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no more cost-effective way of providing for manpower than using the Territorial and Reserve Forces? Is it not urgent that these should be strengthened, at least to the sizes prevailing in countries such as Switzerland, Sweden and Finland?

Mr. Hayhoe: I think that it is important to note that the size of our Regular and Reserve Forces has increased by over 22,000 since the Government came to office and that recruitment of Regulars and the number of volunteers for the Territorial Army are running at near-record levels, if not at record levels. I hope that that will be a matter of satisfaction for all concerned.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister confirm that, contrary to the assumption of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), these are the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hayhoe: Certainly. The figures that I have been given relate to the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom. It is important to stress that we are concerned not with sheer numbers but with highly trained professional people who undertake the tasks that are necessary to provide the deterrent capability that this country needs.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The Minister must be aware that almost all of those who are in the Armed Forces will have

to serve in the mainland European theatre in the event of a European war. What steps is he proposing to take to enable the homeland to be defended if the main forces are isolated in Europe?

Mr. Hayhoe: During the Army debate on 26 June I indicated that we were giving fresh consideration to the arrangements for the defence of the home base. I assure my hon. Friend that these studies are continuing. I hope that it will not be too long before some further announcement can be made.

Mr. Hardy: Do these figures mean anything at all? Do they manage to confirm, for example, that pilots in operational squadrons of the Royal Air Force are prevented from flying more than 15 hours per month, and that at well below maximum aircraft performance levels? Since pilots and many other people in the Services are prevented from maintaining their skills, are not the Minister's answers about the numbers and the Government's position indicative of absolute hypocrisy?

Mr. Hayhoe: Of course not. I am assured that in the Royal Air Force, as in the other two Services, the restrictions on training are not interfering with the operational effectiveness of our Armed Services.

Co-operation with China

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about co-operation with the Chinese Government in preventing the spread of Soviet imperialism.

Mr. Pym: There is a considerable degree of understanding between Britain and China on world issues, particularly on the need to maintain strong defences against any potential aggressor. We attach importance to the continuing development of our relations with China in many fields, especially trade. The development of our relationship is not directed against any third country.

Mr. Adley: In the light of events in Afghanistan, will my right hon. Friend do what he can to help those countries that have the misfortune to be neighbours of the Soviet Union to defend themselves? Will he confirm that in matters such as defence policy and arms sales we


now regard the Government of China as our allies?

Mr. Pym: We are developing a trade relationship with China, and that includes certain arms sales, principally in the direction of modernising the equipment in the possession of China. That is the basis on which we are talking to them all the time. Some contracts have already been signed.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter, bearing in mind that we are prepared to sell arms to China and that the American Administration is working very closely with that country on defence matters? Why should not we have, for example, a training mission there to help the Chinese to build up their tank divisions?

Mr. Pym: It is possible that that might develop in due course, but we are only at the beginning of a developing relationship with China. That is something that we can consider.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the cost and dangers of introducing cruise missiles to Great Britain and the proposed Polaris replacement programme.

Mr. Pym: Since last December I have received some 1,000 letters and about 20 petitions about the decision to base United States ground-launched cruise missiles in the United Kingdom, and since July I have received some 70 letters and two petitions on Trident.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Secretary of State reconsider his earlier answers? Will he now realise that it is abhorrent to millions of people in Britain, including a great many who voted Conservative at the last general election, that on the one hand, the Government are spending thousands of millions of pounds on unusable dangerous weapons, while on the other they are destroying social provision and our industrial base, which will be essential in any conflict?

Mr. Pym: I think that a balance of terror is an unacceptable way of preserving the peace. In due course, and as early as possible, we hope that there

will be another way. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that not only is the idea of that abhorrent to people in this country, but that if it were ever put to them it would be abhorrent to people in the Soviet Union and in all the Warsaw Pact countries. One of the major problems that I see is that, unfortunately, there is no way of reaching the Russian people, but I hope that in due course it will be possible to reach them, although I do not know how.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since both of these weapons systems are an essential part of an agreed NATO strategy, will my right hon. Friend, in his reply to these matters, point out that it would be political cowardice and moral humbug if we were to duck out of all responsibility and shelter behind other people carrying it?

Mr. Pym: That would be an extremely unwise course. No British Government have regarded it as a sensible course to pursue, and I trust that that will always be the position.

Mr. Leighton: Did the Secretary of State notice that the figure given for the solving of London's housing problem was £5 billion—exactly the price of Trident? Would it not be better to spend the money on housing?

Mr. Pym: If we did not protect London adequately it might be at risk, as it has been before. That is the point that we must recognise.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the modernisation of the Alliance's theatre nuclear forces is one of the most important strategic matters before the House and the country? The Western Powers are outnumbered in theatre nuclear systems by 10:1 in Europe and if we do not wish to be intimidated or blackmailed, we must modernise.

Mr. Pym: Yes. It was a unanimous decision. That modernisation programme is an integral part of the whole defence strategy of NATO.

Rapid Deployment Force

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made with developing a long-range British military capability that can operate outside the NATO area.

Mr. Pym: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken).

Mr. Hooley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are making Britain look ridiculous in the eyes of the world? He is posturing that we can police the high seas of the Indian Ocean, while the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is telling him that he will not even pay for the paraffin that is necessary for the exercise. Is it not time that we gave up these absurd pretentions to great Power status?

Mr. Pym: I am not posturing in any such way, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is impossible for any country to defend itself by itself. Defence can be undertaken only on a collective basis. Every country must appreciate that it is interdependent on every other country. We must all contribute to the whole whatever is appropriate. Owing to our history and circumstances, we have certain capabilities that it is appropriate to make available. I have always described them as modest. I wish that they were less modest. I have to face the facts of what we are able to do. It is because our capabilities are modest that it is all the more important that we co-operate with our allies throughout the world, so that between us we continue to preserve the peace.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend explain to Labour Members below the Gangway that Britain requires vital raw materials that come from all parts of the world, that to guarantee the safe arrival of raw materials that are vital for manufacturing industry we must have defence forces stationed throughout the world, and that if we are to do that we must co-operate with other Western countries that share our love of freedom?

Mr. Pym: I applaud my hon. Friend's intention. I think that I might get a better hearing when the Opposition have sorted themselves out a bit.

Crusader Exercise

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the results of the Crusader exercise in September; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, exercise Crusader was very successful. Over 30,000 troops were moved from the United Kingdom, including some 20,000 members of the Territorial Army and substantial numbers of the RAF. The Territorial Army turnout was high, and its performance throughout received well-deserved praise. The great majority of reinforcements were in their exercise positions within 48 hours of leaving their bases, demonstrating our ability to reinforce BAOR swiftly and effectively should the need arise. The field training exercise in Germany, in which United States and German forces played a prominent part, tested our operational techniques on a scale previously untried.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House who were fortunate enough to be present to observe part of Crusader were highly impressed by the professional activities of our Armed Forces, especially those of the Territorial Army? Is there any possibility of my hon. Friend's persuading his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to produce a report showing exactly the extent of Crusader and how successful it was?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the well-deserved tribute that he pays. It will take several months before the results of the exercise have been analysed in detail. There is no question but that valuable lessons are being learnt. When the report is compiled in the new year we shall consider how much of it can be presented to the House, within the restrictions of security.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that his answer is extraordinarily complacent? The Crusader exercise indicated once again the growing urgency of local and transatlantic reinforcement, supply and reception, and has thus called into question the Secretary of State's priorities, especially those that suggest his growing interest in military deployment beyond the Tropic of Cancer.

Mr. Hayhoe: Labour Members must make up their minds on whether they want more money spent on defence, or less. It is clear that the exercise revealed that we were able to provide reinforcements for Germany within 48 hours. I think that that is a tribute to everyone concerned.

Trident missiles

Dr. Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in his negotiations with the United States Administration with regard to the final settlement of the real cost of Trident, the revised estimate of the date it will be in service and its use under the direct control of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Pym: On the question of negotiations with the United States Government, I refer to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton). As to the costs, in-service date and control of Trident, my hon. Friend will have seen the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and President Carter, published in Cmnd. 7979, and the memorandum on the future United Kingdom strategic nuclear deterrent force, which I published in July.

Dr. Glyn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that I speak for all my hon. Friends in congratulating him on the work that he has done on this important missile. Does he agree that the missile provides an umbrella of protection not only for ourselves but for NATO and our allies in Europe? Would it not be appropriate if they made some contribution towards the cost of the weapon?

Mr. Pym: All the members of NATO contribute to NATO in different ways. A unique feature of the British contribution is Polaris, and later it will be the Trident missile system, which no other country in Europe could provide. It is part of our total defence contribution. Other countries spend more money on, and have a greater presence in terms of, for instance, their armies. I think that it is best to leave matters in that way. In other words, we share the total contribution by the different ways in which we contribute to NATO.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 October.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I welcomed

President Masire of Botswana and held meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having talks with President Masire later this afternoon, and this evening I shall preside at a dinner in his honour.

Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the present level of unemployment, redundancies and closures is a grave indictment of her Administration, and that she has betrayed the high office that she holds? Is she further aware that if the Cabinet agrees to further cuts it will deepen the recession and force even more of our fellow citizens to rot on the dole queue?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the main part of the hon. Gentleman's question about cuts, what the Government are trying to do is to hold to the public expenditure totals that were published for this year and next. The private sector has to keep within its own budget and, indeed, sometimes has to cut costs. The Government are trying to keep within their pre-announced totals. We should and must do that if there is to be room within the private sector for the necessary measures that it needs to take. It is wrong to say that cuts in public expenditure will lead to further unemployment. If we leave more and more burdens to fall on the private sector, that is where the unemployment will arise.

Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend today alert the electorate to the despicable resolution that was passed at the recent Labour Party conference, which indicated that council house tenants who have been given the right to buy their homes will not be able to resell them at market value? Will she further alert the electorate to the fact that the resolution was described by a Labour Privy Councillor as being an incentive for people to vote Tory at the next election?

The Prime Minister: I firmly believe in the latter point that my hon. Friend makes—that people cannot sign away their statutory right to purchase their council houses if they have been council tenants. I hope that they will take my hon. Friend's advice and keep a Tory Government in office, so that they can keep their new property.

Mr. Foot: We shall debate the Government's appalling unemployment record tomorrow. The right hon. Lady referred to "holding public expenditure". In view of the answers that have been given this afternoon, will she tell us which side she takes on the issue of public expenditure on defence? Is she on the side of the Secretary of State for Defence or on that of the Chief Secretary, or does she think that this correspondence should now cease?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that defence matters, and matters concerning any other sphere of government, cannot be carried on other than on a basis of confidence and trust. Matters that are confidential should be kept confidential. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier replied to certain questions about defence expenditure. The cash limit for this year's defence expenditure has been increased by about £250 million from the Contingency Reserve.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady now be good enough to tell us whether she agrees with the Chief Secretary's letter?

The Prime Minister: I do not intend to take lectures on defence from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. David Steel: Does the right hon. Lady recognise the distinction made by the chairman of ICI between a bracing climate and freezing to death? If she does not, will she at least listen to the experienced voices of her own Back Benchers, who are calling for a cut in interest rates in order to increase industrial activity and employment?

The Prime Minister: I am the first person to want a cut in interest rates when such a cut is possible. As the right hon. Gentleman observed, interest rates in the market were well above minimum lending rate last week. We cannot bring down interest rates while the demand for loans by the Government and by companies together is as high as it is. I trust that we shall have the full support of the right hon. Gentleman as we try to reduce the amount of public borrowing, so that there is greater room for private sector borrowing at a lower interest rate.

Mr. George Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to endorse the judgment that was expressed last week by the Minister for Social Security, to the effect that if the Government had to apologise for anything—if—it was for cutting too little, too late? Will my right hon. Friend reassure the country that a critical review of public expenditure commitments will be undertaken, from which no Department will be exempt?

The Prime Minister: I agree that the public sector cannot go on withdrawing resources from the private sector. The private sector needs those resources if it is to remain in a healthy condition and expand. There must be a limit to the amount that the public sector can spend. However much one may want to spend more on particular projects, the money must be earned before we can spend it.

Mr. Canavan: asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for Tuesday 28 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Prime Minister find time today to send a message of congratulation and encouragement to Mr. Walecsa, the leader of the Polish trade union movement, who effectively and democratically used trade union action to bring fundamental changes in Government policy as well as the sacking of Poland's Prime Minister? Will the Prime Minister encourage the trade union movement to do the same thing in this country?

The Prime Minister: I rather thought that this country had had free trade unions for generations, with privileges above those of other citizens.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of private industry in Britain is making a profit but is paying far too much of that profit—if not all of it—to the banks in the form of interest rates? Does she agree also that the private sector of manufacturing industry carries the brunt of the effect of the Government's policy? Will she look at what other countries,


such as the Federal Republic of Germany, do to assist their industries when interest rates rise above a certain level? In that way we can ensure that there is some manufacturing base left when my right hon. Friend's overall policies—which I fully support—are successful.

The Prime Minister: The total demand for borrowing—partly by the public sector and partly by the private sector—keeps up interest rates. The Government can try to borrow less, and thus allow the interest rate to fall. When there is high public sector borrowing, there tends to be a high interest rate. If we can reduce public sector borrowing, there will be a lower interest rate. We must reduce the proportion that the Government take in public spending, in order to leave the greater part for the private sector.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: During her busy day, will the Prime Minister find time to reflect on the reply that she sent to me yesterday about the actions of the Conservative Board of Finance, which wrote a squalid fund-raising letter to 50 companies—including one in my constituency—merely because they were in receipt of Government grants? Will she make it clear to the Conservative Board of Finance that this type of letter, which was little more than an invitation to corruption, provoked a sense of revulsion in all parts of the House?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to add that my reply to him pointed out at once that that letter should not have been sent. I said that at once, and the letter was withdrawn immediately.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Prime Minister aware of the righteous anger of reasonable Ulster people, who feel that the offer of civilian-type dress to prisoners in Northern Ireland is the first stage of capitulation to the evil murderers and men of violence in H-block, who have made a propaganda exercise of this issue? Will she commit the Government to offering civilian-type dress to all prisoners thoughout the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, this matter was under consideration for some time. If a decision was to be made, it seemed right to make it before the hunger strike started. It would have

been wrong to make a decision while the hunger strike was being carried on. The decision has been made and we shall stand by it. There will be no concessions to those on hunger strike—none at all.
As regards the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he knows that there are a number of differences between the treatment of prisoners in Northern Ireland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom. One reason for that is that a much greater proportion of prisoners in Northern Ireland have received sentences of three years or more. A far smaller proportion of such prisoners exist in the rest of the United Kingdom. There are already some differences, and this will be a further difference.

Mr. Foot: Why does the right hon. Lady not appreciate that her reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) was not satisfactory? Should she not have apologised for the fact that the letter was sent in the first place? Has she had time to discover how much money was raised for Conservative Party funds by this squalid method?

The Prime Minister: Nothing was raised as a result of that letter. because the matter was discovered the next day. Telephone calls were made immediately to those in receipt of the letter. An instruction was issued to the effect that the letters should be withdrawn immediately. I have given the right hon. Gentleman my views. The letter should never have been sent. Instructions were given to the effect that it should be withdrawn and returned immediately. Most of those letters have been returned.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister: In any event, I do not answer for the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister, but I think that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) wishes to raise a point of order.

Mr. Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The delay will prevent my calling the next question.

Mr. Morris: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay anybody but is it right for the Prime Minister to mislead the House?

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. Freud: Q4. Mr. Freud asked the Prime Minister if she is satsified with the co-ordination of the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security in their administrative arrangements in respect of the families on supplementary benefit.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Freud: Will the Prime Minister explain how the requisite provision for school meals, demanded by the Education Act 1944, can be made in schools where the school meals service has been abolished? In replying, will she bear in mind the undesirability of highlighting the identity of the recipients of free school meals?

The Prime Minister: I am very much aware of the latter point. It has always been a matter to which hon. Members have given great attention, but we have never been able to find a means of wholly overcoming the problem, whatever the regime has been. It so happens that the new school meals service is working very well and is very popular among many pupils.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Prime Minister look into the fact that unemployed people in my constituency—and I have an unemployment rate of 17 per cent.—who have committed no crime are being told to go to work camps in Henley-in-Arden, when the Home Secretary is bringing a Bill before the House telling people who have committed crimes that they can defer going to prison? How does the Prime Minister explain that?

The Prime Minister: I am just as concerned as the hon. Member is about the numbers of people unemployed, but I must carry on with the policy to reduce inflation, because that is the way ultimately to get the number of unemployed people down and to give them good and proper job prospects.

BOWATER PAPER MILLS, ELLESMERE PORT

Mr. Porter: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed closure of Bowaters paper mill at Ellesmere Port".
I would not ask for such an Adjournment on the ground that the proposed closure will throw 1,500 men out of work immediately and will have an even greater effect on the local economy and employment prospects in the long run. I know that you Mr. Speaker, would not allow that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member, out of fairness to himself, will wait a moment until hon. Members have left the Chamber.

Mr. Porter: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, because this closure is infinitely more important than hon. Members having afternoon tea.
The matter is of national importance for a number of reasons, the main one being that Bowaters produce about 60 per cent. of British newsprint. The view of the paper industry is that the closure will make the rest of newspaper production in this country totally unviable and that in the near future Britain will be entirely dependent upon foreign newsprint. Those of us who believe that in a democracy the dissemination of information by the written word is important will view this prospect with some alarm.
A second effect is that the balance of payments will be adversely affected to the extent of at least £70 million a year.
The matter is urgent because Bowaters has indicated that, while the redundancy notices do not come into effect until 21 November, in practice any decision to withdraw or defer those notices must be made by the end of this month—that is, in the next few days.
The House should be made aware of this vitally important problem, and it should also be made aware of the generous offers that this Government have made to Bowaters. The House should


seek some method of bringing the interested parties around the table in order to find a solution. On that basis, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will view this application with some sympathy.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) gave me notice before 12 noon that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, namely,
the proposed closure of Bowaters paper mills at Ellesmere Port.
I listened with care to what the hon. Member said, because the House will realise that he has drawn our attention to an important and serious matter. The House has instructed me to take into account the various arguments set out in the application but to give no reasons for my decision. I have to rule that the hon Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

RAIL CLOSURES

Mr. Allen McKay: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration, namely,
British Rail's proposed closure of the passenger service link between Sheffield and Huddersfield and the freight-passenger service via the Woodhead line.
Trade unions, local authorities, chambers of commerce, transport groups, environmental associations and Members of this House and the other place have consistently questioned the wisdom of the closures and the economic reasons for them. The closure of the passenger service will bring great hardship to many people. More than 200 of my constituents have protested against the proposals. Some of these people came to Penistone, which is an expanding area. purely and simply because of the rail link with Sheffield. It is also feared that this closure is only the beginning of a whole closure programme.
As for the freight line, in 1965 British Rail selected this line for long-term

development withdrawing the passenger service in 1966. Now it seems that for short-term gain British Rail is drawing back from this long-term commitment. In doing so , it could be putting in jeopardy the marshalling yards attached to this line, involving hundreds of jobs.
British Rail proposes to dispense with the well-maintained signalling system and the only route across the Pennines that will take 8ft 6in container traffic It is a continuous modern track and there is the chance of a future electrified line linking London to Manchester via Sheffield.
The analysis by British Rail of the reasons for the closure is disputed by the rail unions and this has not been discussed. If we are to build up this area, industry is in need of the rail link. British Rail says that there is no need for a public inquiry because this is a freight line, but in fact its own timetables show that at the weekend this line is used for passenger services. These and many other questions must be discussed and can be if my application is granted.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. McKay) gave me notice before 12 noon that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, namely,
British Rail's proposed closure of the passenger service link between Sheffield and Huddersfield and the freight-passenger service via the Woodhead line.
The hon. Member has brought to our notice a matter which is of considerable importance, but I fear that, I cannot rule that his submission falls within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, & c.

Ordered,

That the Grants by Local Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contributions) Order 1980 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, & c.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas].

NORTHERN IRELAND

Ordered,

That the matter of the Report of the Review Group on Legislation and Services for Children and Young Persons in Northern Ireland,


being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—

That if a Bill, entitled the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Bill, be presented this day and read the first time, the Question may

forthwith be proposed upon a motion made by a Minister of the Crown that the Bill be read a second time; and that, if the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) [Money] have been concluded this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—

[Mr. St. John-Stevas]

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 110.

Whitney, Raymond
Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wiggin, Jerry



Wilkinson, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Mr Robert Boscawen and

Wolfson, Mark
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Division No. 470]
AYES
[3.37 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmonds)
Parris, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Alison, Michael
Gummer, John Selwyn
Pawsey, James

Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pollock, Alexander

Ancram, Michael
Hannam, John
Porter, Barry

Arnold, Tom
Haselhurst, Alan
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Aspinwall, Jack
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Hawkins, Paul
Proctor, K. Harvey

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Hayhoe, Barney
Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Raison, Timothy

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Heddle, John
Rathbone Tim

Bell, Sir Ronald
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Renton, Tim

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hooson, Tom
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon.

Berry, Hon Anthony
Hordern, Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm

Best, Keith
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Bevan, David Gilroy
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Biggs-Davison, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rost, Peter

Blaker, Peter
Jessel, Toby
Royle, Sir Anthony

Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Braine, Sir Bernard
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Bright, Graham
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Scott, Nicholas

Brinton, Tim
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Brittan, Leon
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Brooke, Hon Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom
Shelton, William (Streatham)

Bruce-Gardyne, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Bryan, Sir Paul
Knox, David
Shersby, Michael

Buck, Antony
Lang, Ian
Silvester, Fred

Budgen, Nick
Latham, Michael
Sims, Roger

Bulmer, Esmond
Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, T. H. H.

Burden, Sir Frederick
Lawson, Nigel
Speller, Tony

Butcher, John
Lee, John
Spence, John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Chapman, Sydney
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sproat, Iain

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Loveridge, John
Stainton, Keith

Clegg, Sir Walter
Luce, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor

Colvin, Michael
Lyell, Nicholas
Stanley, John

Cope, John
McKay, John (Argyll)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Costain, Sir Albert
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Critchley, Julian
McNair-Wilson, Michael, (Newbury)
Stokes, John

Crouch, David
McQuarrie, Albert
Stradling Thomas, J.

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Major, John
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Dorrell, Stephen
Marlow, Tony
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mates, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Mather, Carol
Thompson, Donald

Eggar, Tom
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Eyre, Reginald
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thornton, Malcolm

Fairbairn, Nicholas
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)

Fairgrieve, Russell
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Trippier, David

Farr, John
Moate, Roger
Waddington, David

Fell, Anthony
Morgan, Geraint
Wakeham, John

Fisher, Sir Nigel
Morris, Michael (Northampton Sth)
Waldegrave, Hon William

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Fookes, Miss Janet
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Murphy, Christopher
Wall, Patrick

Fry, Peter
Myles, David
Walters, Dennis

Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Neale, Gerrard
Ward, John

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Onslow, Cranley
Warren, Kenneth

Garel-Jones, Tristan
Oppenhelm, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Watson, John

Glyn, Dr Alan
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

Gow, Ian
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Wheeler, John

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William



NOES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Pavitt, Laurie

Alton, David
George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom

Anderson, Donald
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Ashton, Joe
Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Jo

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Beith, A. J.
Heffer, Eric S.
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Bidwell, Sydney
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Rooker, J. W.

Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Home Robertson, John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Bradford, Rev. R.
Homewood, William
Rosa, Stephen (Ise of Wight)

Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Sever, John

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Janner, Hon Greville
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)

Campbell, Ian
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Skinner, Dennis

Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Canavan, Dennis
Kilfedder, James A.
Spearing, Nigel

Carmichael, Nell
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Lambie, David
Stallard, A. W.

Cook, Robin F.
Leighton, Ronald
Steel, Rt Hon David

Cox, Thomas
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Stoddart, David

Cryer, Bob
Litherland, Robert
Stott, Roger

Cunliffe, Lawrence
McCusker, H.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)

Davidson, Arthur
McKay, Alien (Penistone)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Dixon, Donald
McKelvey, William
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Dobson, Frank
McNamara, Kevin
Tilley, John

Douglas, Dick
McTaggart, Robert
Wainwright, Richard (Coins Valley)

Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Weetch, Ken

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Welsh, Michael

Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Whitehead, Phillip

Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Maxton, John
Wigley, Dafydd

English, Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Winnick, David

Evans, John (Newton)
Molyneaux, James
Wright, Sheila

Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshaw)
Young, David (Bolton East)

Flannery, Martin
Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Foulkes, George
O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

Freud, Clement
Parry, Robert
Mr. Clive Soley

Question accordingly agreed to.

BILL PRESENTED

IMPRISONMENT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS)

Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, supported by Mr. Secretary Pym, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Leon Brittan, presented a Bill to make provision with

respect to the detention of persons who may lawfully be detained in penal institutions in England and Wales and the release from custody of such persons: to make provision for reducing the numbers committed to such institutions; to modify the law relating to remands; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time: and ordered to be printed. [Bill 262].

IMPRISONMENT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I regret that the industrial action by the Prison Officers' Association makes the Bill necessary. In particular, I certainly would not seek to rush the Bill through the House unless the circumstances demanded it.
It may help the House if I remind hon. Members of the background to the present dispute in prisons. The work of prison officers in establishments is organised within the framework of one or other of two duty systems, known as the Vee scheme and the functional group system. The way in which the systems have operated over the years has given rise to a number of disputes with the Prison Officers' Association over the entitlement of officers to payments for meal breaks. Those disputes were among the reasons, and were in fact the immediate occasion, for the appointment of the May committee.
In the event, the committee recommended that three of the 17 claims referred to it should be accepted. The Government accepted the committee's recommendations without hesitation in final settlement of the whole issue of meal break payments or "continuous duty credits" as they have come to be described.
One of the claims that the Government accepted on the recommendation of the May committee applied only to establishments operating one of the two duty systems—the functional group scheme. The Prison Officers' Association subsequently repeated to the Government its original claim that if staff in functional group system establishments were entitled—as May found they were—to those allowances, they should, by extension, also be paid to staff in establishments working the other attendance system—the Vee scheme—which May did not recommend. The Government could not accept that claim. The payments recommended by the May committee were recommended on the basis that they

were an existing entitlement under the committee's interpretation of the conditions of service; the new claim by the Prison Officers' Association constituted an improvement in the existing conditions of service, as the POA recognised.
In coming to a decision on the claims the Government had to consider the position of the prison officers in the context of national economic circumstances. Other recommendations of the May committee, which the Government accepted at the same time, were for a new pay scale for prison officers. Taken together with the subsequent 1980 pay settlement, that gives a prison officer in his first year of service a rate of pay of over £8,000 a year, including normal overtime and taking account of free quarters or rent allowance. In our present economic circumstances we could not conclude that the Prison Officers' Association's claim for an improvement in their conditions of service was justified.
I explained to the House yesterday why I was unable to agree to the Prison Officers' Association's request that the claim should be submitted to arbitration. The May committee itself had already provided an independent assessment of the claims submitted to it by the association. Moreover, the claim itself is outside the terms of the Civil Service arbitration agreement and the association accepts that.
It has been suggested that one means of resolving the dispute would be to ask Mr. Justice May and his committee to reexamine the present claim. I have, of course, considered this, but I am bound to say that I see serious difficulties in the suggestion. I really cannot see how it would be sensible to do this when the May committee's original terms of reference were already so clear and all-embracing. It was asked, among other things,
to examine and make recommendations upon … the claim put forward by the Prison Officers' Association for certain 'continuous duty credit' payments and the date from which any such payments should be made".
The Prison Officers' Association argued to May that if the committee accepted—as it did—the claim for staff working the functional group system, then:
any favourable consideration of the 7k/9b argument should apply equally to all prison officers regardless of their attendance system".


What did May find? At paragraph 9.28 the committee found:
whatever may be the effects of paragraphs 7k and 9b they can confer no right to payment except in cases falling under their terms, and to state the claim in the wide terms noted by the Prison Officers' Association clearly goes well beyond any possible construction of the paragraphs".
What could be clearer than that? Moreover, if we now ask the committee to reconvene and look again at this finding, presumably on a different basis, how could the re-examination be limited to just this one of the many claims which were before the committee and which it determined? It would put in question the whole May settlement, which the Government have accepted and implemented. I do not believe that it would be possible.
Our response both to the Prison Officers' Association's claim and to the request for arbitration therefore had not been negative. Separately from the dispute, negotiations are well advanced, which, if they are satisfactorily concluded will lead to the introduction of a new duty system. The new system would be common to all establishments; it would remove the complexity of the existing systems, which has given rise to the current disputes; and it would remove the anomaly, which I acknowledge, that staff working under one of the existing systems receive certain payments that are not available to staff performing a similar pattern of duty under the other.
It is a matter of great regret that instead of seeking a solution through those negotiations, the Prison Officers' Association decided instead to take such serious industrial action. My ministerial colleagues and I have visited many prison establishments. We have been constantly impressed by the arduous nature of many of the prison officers' tasks and by the tradition, which prison officers share with other members of the service, of dedicated service to the public and to prisoners.
The action that the officers have taken is broadly of three sorts. First, they have prevented certain kinds of work from being done in prisons. In particular, they have stopped contractors from entering prisons to carry out work that is essential to the maintenance of the fabric of the prison estate, and they have prevented

prison workshops from carrying out contracts with their own customers.
Secondly, the officers have in many establishments acted in ways that interfere with the prisoners' routine, leading, for example, to delays in the service of meals and the delivery of letters and to the cancellation of visits.
Thirdly—and most serious—the officers have in many establishments refused to accept prisoners remanded or sentenced by the courts. As a result, there are now more than 3,500 prisoners in police cells, many of them being held in conditions that are unsatisfactory in human terms and often with a lower standard of security than the public have a right to expect. Those cells are filling up rapidly.
In addition, the extra burden placed on the police by the requirement to supervise those who ought to be in prison is distracting them from their principal duties. The actions of the Prison Officers' Association in this respect are placing the public at risk and represent a challenge to the integrity of the administration of criminal justice. They go far beyond any form of industrial action that could be regarded as acceptable in a disciplined service that forms a vital part of our system of criminal justice.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): It is entirely in my right hon. Friend's favour that he has so carefully discussed these matters with both prison officers and the police. Has he drawn to the attention of the Prison Officers' Association some of the ghastly and indescribable details of overcrowding in police cells, particularly among women prisoners? What response has he had from the POA?

Mr. Whitelaw: When I saw the Prison Officers' Association last week I explained very plainly my anxieties about the present situation and my anxieties about what was happening in the police cells, and I made it very clear that it was a situation that I could not continue to contemplate. I believe that the representatives of the association understood that. Both sides at the meeting appreciated that it was a very difficult situation and that a great deal needed to be done in our prisons and that we could only do it together. Alas, for the moment we are not doing it together, but I believe that


we shall be able to do so and I am determined to reach that position at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned, why has it taken him over a year—since the May committee made its recommendation that there was no grievance procedure within the prison service and suggested that new procedures should be designed—to deal with the grievances of prison officers? If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the conditions now being experienced by prisoners in police cells, why did he not take action as long ago as March this year, when 150 were being accommodated in police cells and a further 150 were having to sleep in dormitories, libraries and cupboards—all, again, as a result of bad industrial relations in the prison service?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that the hon. Gentleman, who has studied these matters very closely, will be the first to know just how much both my Home Office officials and I have done since the May committee sat to make changes in the administration and in many parts of the prison service. One cannot do all these things in one day. I have done my best to push them forward as quickly as possible.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman made a faux pas when he spoke about one day".

Mr. Whitelaw: There is no faux pas. I cannot conceivably do all these things, but I am explaining why I believe that it is important to have the Bill in one day. I am equally saying that none of us—the hon. Gentleman included, because he has been in the House for some time—can escape the fact that over the years we have neglected our prison system, and that as a result time will be needed to put it right. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be gracious enough to recognise that.
As I said in my statement to the House yesterday, still more needs to be done. The number of prisoners in police cells is approaching their capacity, and the police themselves are heavily burdened. We shall, therefore, provide extra accommodation to relieve the pressure on police

cells. The new prison at Frankland, near Durham, which is nearing completion, will be brought into immediate use for this purpose. It will be manned chiefly by a combination of members of the prison service and of Service men, and will be ready to take its first prisoners on Thursday morning. The police will be on hand to assist with security. Frankland can, if necessary, hold up to 900 prisoners.
Thereafter, military camps will be brought into use as circumstances require. They will be manned in the same way as Frankland and will hold approximately 400 to 500 prisoners. Security is already adequate at Frankland: it has a secure perimeter, and prisoners will be housed in secure purpose-built cell blocks. Any further accommodation will be made as secure as possible.

Mr. Mark Hughes: In so far as Frankland will be used for the reception of prisoners from outside County Durham, will the cash limits on the police force be raised so that they can cover overtime payments that would otherwise fall as a rate burden on those who live in my constituency?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a very good point for the Member of Parliament for the area to raise. I cannot possibly give an answer now. I shall have to consider the matter very carefully. But I must emphasise that the shorter the industrial action of the prison officers, the sooner we can return to a reasonable position, and the less will be the cost on the ratepayers of Durham or, indeed, on anybody else. I shall do my best to help the Durham position, which I understand, but I can give no commitment.
What I have said so far explains how it is that the Government have had to introduce the Bill. I now turn to the contents of the Bill itself.
The House will see that the Bill consists of two parts. The first contains the temporary powers that the Government are seeking. These are intended to provide a range of temporary measures of relief, which can be used as necessary to keep our system of criminal justice working notwithstanding the effects of the present industrial action. The second part primarily deals with procedural and financial matters, but also contains one important


declaratory provision. I shall concentrate on the temporary provisions in part 1, taking these provisions in turn.
Clause 1 would permit the establishment of temporary accommodation to which the prison rules, modified as circumstances demanded, could be applied, and ensure that those with the task of running such places would have the powers and protection enjoyed by prison officers. It is obviously essential in the present circumstances to resort to temporary holding places to try to ensure, so far as possible, that the orders of the courts are observed. The capacity of police accommodation is likely to be exceeded very soon, and that accommodation is ill-adapted to holding prisoners for more than short periods. The quicker we can commission temporary accommodation, the sooner we shall be able to provide some relief for the police service, and the better our chances of avoiding having to activate the provisions of clause 3.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The Home Secretary said that clause 1 was intended to create a situation in which those who were controlling the approved places would have the powers of prison officers, but clause 6 suggests that they should have the powers of a constable, which are infinitely greater than those of prison officers. Why is it necessary to insert that provision in the clause?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall look into the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will reply to the debate and will deal with detailed points such as that. I think that it is very important that the debate should be conducted in that way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will await my hon. and learned Friend's response.
The broad purpose of clause 2 is very different. It is not directly concerned with the management of the temporary accommodation so much as with trying to minimise the load on those who are responsible for detaining committal and remand prisoners in the present circumstances. In practice, it is the police who are taking this load. Without clause 2 both the police and those running temporary accommodation would be obliged automatically to produce virtually all remand prisoners to court at least once

every eight days. In present circumstances this would impose an intolerable burden. In order to spread the load of holding prisoners in police cells, prisoners have had to be sent to places that are often some distance from the courts that remanded them.
I should, however, stress that what is proposed in clause 2 is in no way intended to halt the ordinary process of judicial review; courts will still be obliged to examine the case of anyone they have remanded in custody in the usual way, and it will remain open to them to require that particular prisoners be brought before them.
In considering whether to use their powers to call up a prisoner, the courts will have to balance the difficulties that there may be for the police in producing him against any special reasons that may exist for having the prisoner before them.

Mr. Stan Crowther: I do not think that I am misreading the clause. Perhaps the Home Secretary will confirm that it will deprive an unrepresented prisoner who has been once remanded in custody of the opportunity to make an application for bail in person on a second or subsequent remand. Is not that so?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State that in regard to an application in person that would be right, but we shall seek to deal with that matter so that the opportunity is given, if not in person. In fact, the prisoner concerned will have that opportunity.
It is important that the details should be spelt out. We have an opportunity to deal with them during Second Reading and in Committee. I should like to hear all the detailed points in the debate, but if I try to answer them now it will make my speech too long. I hope that hon. Members will agree to put their detailed points and have them answered when the appropriate time comes.

Mr. Leo Abse: It may be regarded by the Home Secretary as a detail but it cannot be regarded as a detail that an unrepresented man can be put into custody and then have no access whatever to legal advice. The man could be incarcerated interminably without even a solicitor or his relatives knowing where he was. Is that a detail? The Home


Secretary should explain to the House what facilities will be provided for access to legal advice.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents me. I never said that it was a detail; I regard it as a very important matter. I hope that the things that I was saying about the way in which the system will work are details. I wish to have the opportunity of listening to points that are made. My hon. and learned Friend and I will be very ready to respond and to improve, I hope, what we are seeking to do as a result of what hon. Members say. That is the importance of what we are seeking to do. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that point.

Mr. John Morris: My hon. Friends have touched on a real difficulty. The Home Secretary may not be aware that we have tabled a manuscript amendment to ensure that a person who is dealt with in this way is at least legally represented. Will the Home Secretary indicate that, given the statement that he has made, when the time comes he would want to look with sympathy at the basis of our points even if they are not totally accurate in the way that we have put them.

Mr. Whitelaw: The purpose of the debate is to do just that. I will, of course, do so. [Interruption.] Hon Members may laugh, but that is the situation. I wish to make some very difficult arrangements as sensible as I can, with the assistance of the House. I shall, of course, consider what the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) says when the time comes.
In considering whether to use their powers to call up a prisoner the courts will have to balance the difficulties that may occur for the police in producing him against any special reasons that might exist for having the prisoner before them. I am sure that they will do their best in difficult circumstances and that, whether or not the prisoner is brought before them, they will give full weight to any new circumstances that might justify the grant of bail. For example, the police may be able to report that grounds for a previous police objection to bail no longer exist. There will be cases in which the prisoner is already

legally represented, and his interests will be protected by his representative. In other cases, where representation appears necessary in the prisoner's interests, the courts have power to grant legal aid for any hearing in absentia.
I now come to clause 3, which would enable me, quite frankly, to override the decisions of courts and to authorise the release of unsentenced prisoners whom courts have decided should be kept in custody. I hope that this will not become necessary, but I have to face the fact that there may be more people held in police custody than the cells will accommodate. Naturally, I could begin to contemplate the use of this power only if the police were stretched to an unprecedented degree. But if I am satisfied—and here I am quoting the words of the Bill—that it is necessary to act in order to make the best use of the places available for detention, this is a power that I must have available to me. I must be able temporarily to release the less dangerous prisoner in order to make room for the more dangerous new arrival in the system.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The Home Secretary knows that he is dealing with an extremely important but also vulnerable point. He is saying that it is necessary for him to take measures to override the judiciary to make the best use of available space. He has been repeatedly asked to take such action by hon. Members on both sides of the House in terms of this House legislating to reduce sentences. The right hon. Gentleman has constantly replied that he, as a Tory Home Secretary, will not interfere with the independence of the judiciary. If the same argument to make the best use of available space applies now, it applies as a permanent proposition in the penal system.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view. I have made my position clear—of seeking to proceed by voluntary agreement on shorter sentences in normal circumstances. I am putting forward proposals now—I have made clear that I do not like them—because I am forced to do so by the sort of industrial action taken by the prison officers. I am entitled to say that, because it is a fact of life. The hon. Gentleman might wish for this action to be taken on a pemanent basis. I, personally, do


not wish that. I have made clear, however, that I am forced to do it under present circumstances.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: So much for the independence of the judiciary.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman says "So much for the independence of the judiciary." I am faced with a totally abnormal situation because of the industrial action of the prison officers. I have to take whatever action is available to me to deal with an extreme position.
I want to stress two points at this stage. First, if it became necessary to use this power it would be quite impossible to assess the merits of each and every prisoner held in police cells and draw up a tidy list in my office. What I would propose to do would be to authorise the police to release any prisoners whom they held who came within a given category, subject to the police being able to register objections and get instructions from the Home Office about any prisoner whose case, in their opinion, presented unusual features. Needless to say, we shall give the greatest weight to any police objections, but the decisions will be taken in accordance with my instructions and I shall remain personally answerable for what is done.
That is an unpleasant situation for any Home Secretary. I believe, however, that it is the only possible way to operate an emergency power, and so I shall take personal responsibility. Everything that goes wrong will be entirely my responsibility. I cannot be fairer than that.
We shall say more about the categories that we have in mind when we come to the Committee stage, but I say here and now that there would be a large category of prisoners who were charged with offences so grave that I would not contemplate releasing them in any circumstances. My aim would be to clear out what smaller fry there were in the system, and I would take a lot of persuading to move very far up the spectrum. At the same time, if it needs saying again, I would use this power only for the very shortest time that it was forced on me. It is a device for easing pressure on police cells if that becomes intolerable. I would not use it for one moment more than I had to, and my aim would be that in each case the prisoner should be returned

to the normal court routine as quickly as possible.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In his explanation of clause 3, the Home Secretary appeared to indicate that it would be used only in respect of persons who were in police cells. That does not appear on the face of the Bill. Is that an additional limitation that he is announcing, or is it somehow implicit in the wording?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot be certain of the answer, but the purpose of incorporating this proposal was to deal with those who were remanded in police cells and not able to get to the prisons. Different circumstances apply—I am coming to those in my next point—to those already convicted in the prisons. The clause would be confined mainly to those in police cells.
Clause 4 is designed to prevent any magistrates' court that has been notified that the clause applies to it from imprisoning people for failure to pay any sum of money—for example, a fine or maintenance—or where they have been found to have insufficient value of distress in lieu. The clause does not prevent notified courts ultimately from imprisoning defaulters, because it will remain open to them to do so, if necessary, at the end of the emergency. It therefore merely provides for the suspension of the powers of the courts in these respects. The defendants cannot be regarded as representing a public danger by reason only of their default, so the safety of the public is not endangered by this power.
Clause 5 gives me a power to release sentenced prisoners up to six months before their normal date of release. As for clause 3, I could activate this power only if I were satisfied that I had to do so to make the best use of available secure accommodation. The clause enables me to select what class of prisoners I wished in the exercise of this power, save that life sentence prisoners are excluded, but it would certainly not be my intention to release dangerous offenders in this exceptional way. As with clause 3, I hope that I will not have to use the power, but equally I must ask the House to make it available to give me the room for manoeuvre that I need at this difficult time.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the clause might be used to deal with the general problem of overcrowding, which is not related to the emergency? Will he explain why the power is needed when, presumably, the prisons are accommodating fewer people because 3,000 prisoners cannot get into them?

Mr. Whitelaw: The power is needed because under certain circumstances in an emergency the conditions in some of the prisons might become so difficult and bad that it could only be right to ease the numbers in them. That is the purpose, and I believe that it is a sensible provision.
Part II of the Bill contains the permanent provisions. Clause 9 cites the title and extent of the Bill, and is purely formal. Clause 7 seeks authority for the necessary expenditure, is brief, and is cast in the common form.
Clause 6 seeks to make a permanent declaratory provision about the legality of a constable's continued detention of prisoners whom he would normally lodge in a penal institution but whom it is not practicable to deliver there.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In his opening remarks the Home Secretary mentioned the permanent part of the Bill. It is totally unfair to the House to introduce permanent legislation in this way. The right hon. Gentleman should give an undertaking that the whole of the legislation will be removed as soon as the emergency is over. If he feels that any permanent legislation is necessary, it could be introduced in the normal way and not in this rushed manner.

Mr. Whitelaw: All that I want to do is to put beyond possible doubt something that I understand has been in doubt for some time—that is, the legal position of the police in such circumstances. I believe that it is sensible to make that a permanent arrangement. It is right to put beyond all question something that is in doubt.
Lastly, clause 8 sets out the arrangements for the duration, expiry and revival of the Bill's temporary provisions in part I. The clause provides that the provisions of part I will run for three months in the first instance, renewable in whole or

in part for up to one month at a time by an order subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
Similarly, lapsed provisions may be revived for up to three months by an order under affirmative resolution procedure. The primacy of the affirmative procedure is preserved even where, because of urgent unforeseen developments, lapsed provisions are revived without Parliament's prior consent.
I hope that the Prison Officers' Association—whom I remain ready to see at any time—will soon feel able to look forward to the solution that is available to them through a new duty system and to the better future that the Government are prepared to provide through the wider changes in management and conditions that can follow from the May report. But, as matters stand today, I have to ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: There is a difficulty in the prisons. It has been building up for some time. The issue with which most of the commentators and the Government are concerned is the number of people in police cells. However, other problems have arisen in the prisons. Of course we must act. I want to be helpful because of the situation, but the problem was not created in the last couple of days. It would have been better had Parliament been recalled. We are talking not of small-time legislation but a measure which touches on the basic rights of people in the community. We could have given proper consideration to the proposed measure. We could have had the proper discussions about the freedom of the individual and the powers of the judiciary.
My advice to my hon. Friends is not to vote on the Second Reading. We should use the occasion to amend the Bill on vital issues, to begin the process of penal reform and to consider the problem of over-population in the prisons. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) was right. If there is a case for interfering in the size of the prison population, it should not be done in this way. In putting that case, the Government have conceded that something should be done about the size of the prison population, not only in the short run. The problem is not new.
The Home Secretary spoke at some length about the problem surrounding continuous duty credits. That is the sparking point. I met representatives of the Prison Officers' Association last night, and I have read reports of what happened. Under its terms of reference, the May committee was asked
to examine and make recommendations upon … the remuneration and conditions of service of prison officers, … and other grades.
The reason for other grades being included was that all was not exactly sweetness and light between prison officers and other grades working in the prisons. We might as well face that. The situation is known to right hon. and hon. Members who represent constituencies containing prisons. The committee was asked to examine in addition
the claim put forward by the Prison Officers' Association for certain 'continuous duty credit' payments and the date from which any such payments should be made.
It is important that that should be made clear, because that is the issue through which we must find our way.
The terms of reference were not agreed with the aggrieved parties, because that is not the way in which the Government should proceed. That was what the May committee was set up to do, although we took the opportunity to deal with other problems in the prison service.
It is not for me to put words in anybody's mouth, but I think that there is agreement in the Prison Officers' Association with what I have said so far. There are two matters. If something could be done about them, there would be no need for this legislation on this occasion and we could set about examining these issues in the longer term. The association put to me last night that paragraphs 9.28 and 9.29 of the May report deal with two issues. The first deals with "No. 16"—to use prison service jargon—and the question of continuous duty credits. It was put to me that another group of people in prisons work the same roster as the people who have been granted extra payments. The prison officers want that examined. They believe that the wording of the May recommendation does not meet their point. That is the basic issue. The Walton claim is a minor part of the major issue. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will forgive me for saying that.
The association asked last night for the May sub-committee to be reconvened to examine the two issues. The association says that it knows that it agreed that the May committee should make recommendations, but that problems are being caused because of the people who work the Vee roster. They would like to put their case on that issue and on the minor Walton scheme. The association was to have a meeting a 11 o'clock this morning. If the sub-committee were reconvened, the association says that it would recommend to the full committee on Thursday that the strike be called off.
It is not for me to become involved, and I do not suggest that that is necessarily what would happen. However, full consideration should be given to the Prison Officers' Association's request. I am sure that the Government have considered that possibility, but we should know why that is not the way forward.
We should be told here on the Floor of the House why it is not possible to move in that direction.

Mr. Clive Soley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this matter is of such importance and that the powers that are being sought are so draconian that there is no reason for not trying that approach instead of the methods that are being suggested, which are so serious for our constitution and our society?

Mr. Rees: I shall deal with the legislation and the draconian methods it employs. However, the prison officers felt last night that they could put this argument. They put it to me then and I have read in the newspapers that they have put it to others of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Therefore, when will the Government meet the Prison Officers' Association? The Government should tell us. Up to 4,000 people are now in police cells. In London the cells are full and problems are beginning to arise.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have set out in considerable detail why I do not believe that reconvening May would be possible in the present circumstances. I have made it perfectly clear that the correct way forward is through the new duty system. Negotiations have been continuing. My officials are ready to meet the prison officers further on the matter at any moment. I, of course, am prepared to


see them at any time. I believe that that is the best way forward.

Mr. Rees: I have never believed that wage negotiation was well conducted on the Floor of the House. Nevertheless, that is the issue before us. However, we on the Labour side hope that a meeting will take place very quickly. That would end the immediate problem, but whether it would end the long-term problem is another matter. When I was Home Secretary, too often I felt that we achieved something only to find it recurrring a month later in another form. We must apply our minds to that problem.
I turn to the legislation. The Home Sercetary dealt with clause 8 and the temporary nature of the legislation. During the winter of discontent, as it has come to be called, I had to stand at the Government Dispatch Box dealing with the permanent emergency legislation that is on the statute book. Some people reminded me this morning that during that period I was not treated as generously during those four or five difficult weeks as we have sought to be in the past 24 hours [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman thinks that this is ungenerous, he should have been here during the winter of discontent.
There is a process that we normally use with temporary legislation. I do not know whether the Home Secretary can be helpful on this point. I suggest that the legislation should terminate not after three months, as he proposes, but after one month. At first I thought that three months was better than the normal six months, but I have thought further about it. Even if we debate the Second Reading until 10 o'clock and we sit up for the greater part of the night debating the main clauses, we shall not be doing the Bill justice. We should remember that we are removing the powers of the judiciary. There will be block release from prison. If the legislation were being introduced in normal circumstances and in the absence of a strike, we should not be completing all stages in one day. We should have a Second Reading with, some time later, a slower movement through the Committee stage. I therefore hope that the Home Secretary will feel able to accept our amendment completely to remove the Act from the statute book after one month.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who is temporarily out of the Chamber but will deal with these matters, put a similar point to Mr. Roy Jenkins when he was Home Secretary and was introducing temporary provisions legislation. The legislation contained a provision similar to the one that we are now discussing. When my hon. Friend advanced the case that I am now making, Mr. Jenkins removed it because the way it had been drawn up—and this provision is drawn up the same—meant that some parts of the legislation would remain after the three months' expiry.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: The point is made in the clause to which the Home Secretary did not refer, clause 9. I understand why he did not refer to it. It contains nothing. However, the implication of what the Home Secretary has told us is that for ever after there will be on the statute book an Act entitled Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act. It will contain two or three clauses. With the words "temporary provisions" in the title, that is ludicrous. The Home Secretary must take this point on board.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend has put the point more forcefully than I did. If the legislation had been going through under the normal procedures, our case on this point would not have been as strong. However, the fact that it is to go through all stages in one night strengthens our argument for the one month provision.
Whatever happens about the CDCs, these problems will arise repeatedly, as is shown by what has happened in the prisons in recent years. The May report spells out the bad industrial relations that have occurred there in the past five or six years. This leads me to my next suggestion. If the strike ends tomorrow and the Bill, as I hope, disappears, it will be a good idea not to wait for this sort of trouble to erupt again but for the problems of the prisons and for the sort of arguments that the Government have advanced to be put before the Home Office Select Committee. Alternatively, we could set up an ad hoc Select Committee to consider these matters. The same problem will arise again on different issues. It is important that they be


discussed. The May committee examined the question of the right to strike. It gave its view. Without giving my views on that, I am asking that we should not look at these problems only in the short term and as a result of an issue that causes us all concern.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: My right hon. Friend said that if the strike ended the legislation would disappear. I am a little worried about that. Do we have an absolute assurance from the Government that the legislation will automatically fall if the strike ends? I understand that if the Bill goes through it will last for three months.

Mr. Rees: I was making a big assumption that the Home Secretary would accept our amendment and the argument that I was advancing a moment ago.
I do not want to go into detail on clause 1: we can do that in Committee. It refers to "approved place". So far, we have spoken of the prison in Durham which is called Frankland. I knew it as Low Newton. It is a very good prison. It will be the most modern in the United Kingdom. It will be an "approved place". That designation will no doubt apply to other Home Office buildings and places. Have the Government anything else in mind? I am thinking of Army camps. We may come to that if everything goes wrong in the next week or two. How will Army camps be run? Army personnel will be inside the prisons. They will do the cooking and run the prisons. They will act as prison officers but will be given the powers of constables. I think that that is what the Home Secretary said. Will they be armed?
I remember that when the Maze prison in Northern Ireland was burnt down one evening we quickly, thank heaven, put the Army into the prison. The question whether the troops should be armed arose on that occasion. I ask again whether the soldiers will be armed. As I said yesterday, I want to be helpful. However, a soldier cannot do the job of a prison officer. If those carrying out their duties are armed, we shall have real problems in the weeks ahead.

Mr. Whitelaw: They will not be armed.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: During his speech the Home Secretary, was asked whether Army officers would have the powers of constables, which extend beyond those of a prison officer. There is an important point here. Army officers have greater immunity from civil liability than do either constables or prison officers. Will that degree of immunity from civil action be retained?

Mr. Rees: It is not for me to answer that question. When the Army acts in aid of the civil power, as I presume it is now doing, I hope that it will have no greater immunity than the civil power that it is aiding. That is a matter for the Government.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If the purpose of the Bill is to keep people in Army camps with lower than usual security, and the soldiers are not to be armed, how will they exercise the degree of restraint that will be necessary, because the camps will not be as secure as prisons?

Mr. Rees: Again, that is a matter for the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend has expressed the matter better than I did. Frankland prison is not quite ready for habitation. I do not envisage many problems there, because it has been built with all the usual secure arrangements such as gates. It is with regard to Army camps that the problem arises. It was for that reason that I raised the question, and no doubt we shall receive an answer.
I turn to clause 2, to which we have tabled an amendment. A problem was raised in the leader in The Times today. I assume that we have all read The Times; therefore, I shall simply take out the bones. It states:
It provides that magistrates would have the power to further remand a prisoner in custody in his absence. Under existing law, prisoners on remand normally come before the courts every week, when they are either released on bail, remanded in custody for a further period, or committed for trial.
The article argues what we want to argue—namely, that if a man or woman cannot be present in court the Bill should be amended to provide for legal representation in court. We hope that the Government will consider the matter. If they have any ideas to make that point stronger, that would please us.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: If the legal representative is adequately to represent his client. he must have access to his client. Should we not hear from the Government on that matter also?

Mr. Rees: Again, that is a matter for the Government. Presently, legal representatives are not being allowed access to their clients by the prison officers. That is the reason for the legislation. If the Government could find an amendment to that, there would be no need for the clause.
I turn to clauses 3 and 4 and the instruction to the magistrates' court not to commit to prison any person for failure to pay any sum of money. Why not make that legislation permanent? The problem of committing people to prison for nonpayment of fines and maintenance payments is one of the reasons for the overcrowding in local prisons. While that suggestion may not receive great approval on the Government side of the House, if such legislation could be introduced on a temporary basis to deal with the problem of overcrowding, why do we not do it on a permanent basis?
With regard to executive releases, the Home Secretary will have great powers to take people out of gaol. The time has come to use an occasion such as this to introduce a system of release from prison, such as the 50 per cent. release scheme that I introduced in Northern Ireland. It is 50 per cent. all the way through because there is no parole in Northern Ireland. I would settle for 50 per cent. release up to two or three years of sentencing, provided that we keep parole, because the distinction is there. If it is good enough for Northern Ireland in a difficult position, where many of those released have been concerned in murder and bombing, introducing the scheme here for sentencing up to two or three years would deal with people whose crimes were not nearly so serious. I ask the Home Secretary to introduce that out of this legislation. At least, let us introduce it for those concerned with non-payment of fines and maintenance.
Whether there is a short-term or long-term need for the legislation—and that is what I have been discussing—I conclude by appealing to the Government to do something long-term to reduce the size of the prison population. It is the

beginning of the next step of prison reform.
We shall use this occasion to look closely at all parts of the Bill and to table amendments. I hope that both sides of the House will consider the amendments on their merits. I may not have received universal approval, but I have attempted to consider the Bill on its merits because of the needs that face the Government. I hope that that is reciprocated. When debating our amendments, I hope that we shall receive help from both sides of the House, because it is a difficult position.
I turn to the question of pay. Again, I realise the problem. but on the two points, 16 and 17, the Home Secretary has said that he is prepared to meet the Prison Officers' Association. The association held a committee meeting today. I hope that it will be in touch with the Home Office. While we are discussing the Bill, I hope that they will short-circuit the need immediately for this legislation. That will give us time to consider the long term. Let us not talk to each other in the House alone. Let the Prison Officers' Association accept what the Home Secretary has done, meet together during the course of the day and come to an agreement which will mean that we can leave the legislation and give it the long-term, deep-seated investigation that it needs. There is a problem in the prisons that should be considered in the House.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I heartily agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that we all recognise that there is a problem in our prisons. We recognise that that problem has been made into something more than serious—indeed, a grave emergency—by the action of the prison officers. The exceptional powers that the Bill will create can be justified only by the exceptional circumstances that have made them necessary. The sooner those circumstances are changed, and the sooner that we can dispense with the use of the powers that we are now seeking to create, the better. I think that I reflect the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House in saying that if it were not for the emergency and for the temporary nature of the legislation, I should not touch or support such legislation with the longest of barge-poles. This is something that we


must face in an attempt to deal with a particular emergency.
I do not like this legislation because I object to any interference by the Executive with the functions of the judiciary. I do not like, and never have liked, the indeterminate sentence of imprisonment which depends for its length upon an Executive decision. For the same reason, though, I shall support the Government's intentions to introduce legislation which will give new discretionary powers to magistrates in dealing with juvenile crime. However, the decision as to how long someone should stay in prison, and the decision as to what punishment should be imposed for a particular crime, is essentially a duty which must be discharged by the judiciary and not by the Executive.
The other element in the present legislation which I do not like is the interference with the right to a writ of habeas corpus. That right has been interfered with not by the Government but, as has already been pointed out, by the action of the prison officers who are refusing to allow prisoners to be brought before the courts in order that they shall be present when the courts investigate the lawfulness or otherwise of their detention. It becomes necessary as a temporary measure to avoid the necessity of bringing prisoners to the court. But I hope that in all circumstances it will be possible for those prisoners on remand who wish to apply for bail, or to have their future bail looked at by the courts, to be represented in the courts so that their interests can be cared for.
There is no doubt—I think that this is a view which is held by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—that some of the provisions in the Bill are objectionable, offensive and dangerous. But they are not as offensive, objectionable or dangerous as the consequences of the actions of the Prison Officers' Association. I suppose it is true to say that always in industrial disputes members of the public who are not directly involved in the debate, although they may be immediately and directly affected by the consequences of the decisions which are ultimately arrived at, are bewildered by the problem that has apparently caused the trouble. I do not think that there has ever been an industrial dispute which has bewildered the public

more than the present one, which is now the subject of the representations of the Prison Officers' Association.
How can a claim for meal break allowances justify exposing the public to all the dangers and anguish of anarchy in our prisons? I do not think that that will be understood, or that there is any argument that will make it understood, by the public. I find it even more incomprehensible because it should be remembered that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has accepted in principle the recommendations that were made by the May committee to put right what many of us thought was wrong with the prison service. I venture to submit that no one has been more successful than my right hon. Friend in persuading the Government to provide the money in difficult times to fulfil the promises that he has already made. It seems that the Prison Officers' Association is
A great-siz'd monster of ingratitudes
and that good deeds past are forgotten as soon as they are done.
I should like to touch upon the suggestion that the May committee should be reconstituted to consider some of the decisions, especially the point at present in dispute, upon which it has already made its opinions known. I respectfully suggest that that would be an unwise and perilous course for the Home Secretary to adopt. The chairman of the committee is a distinguished High Court judge. He carried out a deep, thorough and wholly helpful review of the prison service. In the main, his recommendations have proved not only acceptable to the Government but have been of a character which will be of lasting benefit to the prison service. To suggest that he should now be thrust into the centre of this heated debate, with its political overtones, is something which is intolerable. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider that it is not a course which it is possible for him to take.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This Bill does not, upon the face of it, apply to Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, that is only true as regards the face of the Bill. If it were to appear to the Government that corresponding provisions ought to apply in Northern Ireland, they could at present be applied


by an Order in Council, which, under the urgency procedure, need not come before the House until it was already in force. Therefore, this is effectively the first and last time when hon. Members representing seats in Northern Ireland can contribute to the debate upon the principle, and as such they have an equal right with any other hon. Members to be heard.
There is also a special relevance to Northern Ireland which was emphasised by matters canvassed in the House yesterday. I must tell the Government and the House that the ambiguous, contradictory and self-defeating action of the Government of Northern Ireland in the face of the threat of a hunger strike in the Maze prison fell with particularly severe force upon the morale of the prison officers in that Province—and, in discussing prison officers, we are essentially talking about a profession which, apart from organisation. is one and the same in both parts of the Kingdom.
What I have just said had regard to the morale and confidence in the Government of prison officers; but the consequences of the Government's ill-judged and ambiguous concession, which has not prevented the commencement of a hunger strike in the Maze prison, go far beyond the prison service. They have called into question the competence and sincerity of the Government of Northern Ireland over a wider field, not excluding constitutional matters. Therefore hon. Members representing Northern Ireland feel deeply and directly involved in this legislation.
My hon. Friends and I do not feel able to support even the Second Reading of the Bill. The circumstances which have arisen, and are pleaded as cause for the introduction of the Bill, lie preponderantly at the door of the Government—and, therefore, necessarily, at the door of the Home Office and the Home Secretary. I say that not because of the general principle that the responsibility for securing a work force that will cheerfully and willingly perform the tasks that its employer is able to afford and considers necessary lies predominantly with the employer, but because we are dealing here with a class and condition of men who, beyond almost any other imaginable, have a vested interest in the avoidance of disruption. In Great Britain

and in Northern Ireland there can be none who have more to lose in their personal lives, their duties and their careers than the prison officers have from industrial disruption of the discipline and the administration of the prisons. If, against that background—the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) brought this point out clearly—the Government find themselves unable to arrive at an understanding with those men, which could have avoided the House having to consider this legislation, it can only be concluded that the failure must lie predominantly with the Government It is they who have to answer. It is they who have to make good, if they can, the claim that they are justified in asking for this legislation.
There are two distinct parts to the Bill—and not those labelled I and II. There are the parts which would clearly be necessary if the administration of criminal justice had to be carried out at all in the circumstances that now exist; and there are the other provisions, which are arguably not strictly essential and unavoidable—in present and immediately foreseeable circumstances. I place in the first category the contents not only of clause 6, which in a sense is declaratory—as the Home Secretary described it—but of clause 1. Clearly, if the Army is to be used, as in emergency it must be in order to secure the maintenance of the system of criminal justice and the integrity of the prisons, the necessary legal powers must be conferred, and clause 1 proceeds to do that. If the Government have to provide additional accommodation for those detained and imprisoned, and if they have to do so eventually in camps, they must be given the necessary statutory powers to cover themselves and to cover those ordered to carry out duties for that purpose. I therefore put clause 1, and possibly clause 6, in one category.
I turn now to the remaining clauses, one of which—clause 2—the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and, indeed, I think, the Home Secretary, regarded as standing upon its own merits and as being unconnected with present circumstances. If that is so, to that extent the case for such a clause has automatically fallen. But there is one thing common to clauses 3, 4 and 5 which in my view does not justify the House putting them on the statute book. They


all empower the Executive to intervene in and to annul decisions duly taken by the courts of the land for the punishment and imprisonment of persons who come before them. It is an interference of the Executive not merely with the course of justice but with the whole administration of justice in the courts and prisons. If provisions of this sort are placed on the statute book, then—in spite of what is contained in clause 8, on which I shall comment in a moment—everything will be different from that moment onwards. Let no hon. member suppose that even if and when both clauses have expired no precedent—I do not mean a legal precedent; I mean a much deeper precedent than a legal precedent—will have been created. We shall have said that, to increase the convenience of the Government in present circumstances in using existing accommodation as well as providing additional accommodation under clause 1, we empower the Secretary of State to proceed to the block release of prisoners duly serving their lawful sentences. The Secretary of State indicated—I thought the House was less alarmed than it might have been—that, in effect, that would be operated by the police.

Mr. Whitelaw: Obviously, I did not make myself clear to the right hon. Gentleman, who always understands everything. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will make that point clear in his reply to the debate.

Mr. Powell: I am not sure that I always understand everything, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the words "the police will operate" fell from his lips. However, I am glad to hear that it was less alarming than it sounded to at least one hon. Member. I still say that we are creating a different process from that so acidly considered in the context of the prevention of terrorism legislation, where the Secretary of State can exercise his powers only personally and in respect of specific individuals under the safeguards applying to those individuals which are laid down in the statute. There is nothing in the wording of these clauses which obliges anything like the personal responsibility or scrutiny of the Secretary of State to be brought to bear on what has been

referred to in this debate as "block release". I do not believe that these powers should be given to the Executive by an Act of Parliament, and we shall find future cause to regret having done so. We shall find future emergencies of one character or another—they might not resemble this one—in which we shall discover and be told that it is not the first time that the Executive has sought to interfere with the administration of justice and the execution of the orders of the courts.
In any case, I am not at all sure—this is something to which we shall no doubt come later—that clause 8 as it stands does in fact wipe the slate clean after three months or even after four months. I think that we would need to be satisfied that the power of revitalisation, if I may so describe it, in clause 8(2)(b) will expire with everything else.

Mr. George Cunningham: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that precisely this point arose on the second Prevention of Terrorism Bill when we considered it in Standing Committee, and that the Government accepted that an amendment was required to that Bill to ensure that the power to revitalise should be one of the temporary provisions which could be allowed to lapse and not to remain permanently on the statute book. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that such an amendment is also required to the text that we have before us today.

Mr. Powell: Yes. I am not sure that exactly the same wording would here serve the purpose as in that Bill, but I think that the absolute minimum with which we should be satisfied is that this legislation will, after a maximum of four months, have disappeared—so far as we can ever make what is done undone—from the statute book and become null and of no effect. If that can be achieved, that would be the absolute minimum; but I am afraid that it does not exonerate us, if we support the Government in their proposals, for having in one day, and for no clearly imminent necessity—that could be claimed as to clause 1, but not as to the rest—placed upon the statute book a power of the Executive to intervene in the profound and dramatic way set out in clauses 3, 4 and 5.
It is for the Government to govern. It is for the Government, if they can, to get their legislation. But, for those who do not share that responsibility, it is no excuse for supporting a Bill of this sort to say that there is in it a provision here or there which is probably necessary or even quite useful. It is certainly no excuse for hon. Members to say—I thought that I had caught something of this already in this debate—that something of a different kind, which would reduce the number of persons incarcerated, might be inaugurated by this legislation and, therefore, that they view it with a more tolerant eye. There is nothing in common between clauses 3 to 5—indeed, clauses 2 to 5—and anything that ought conceivably to be enacted in future with a view to reducing the prison population.
There is one thing, and only one, I want to say on the subject of reducing the prison population, for I can go hack at least 25 years and turn up occasions on which, without any great acclaim, I have stated that in my view the most urgent of social services was the creation of additional prison accommodation. I want to say again today that whatever be the reforms which are introduced, whatever will be the limitations of sentence and all other modifications which have been canvassed, the effect of which would be to reduce the total prison population, the idea that we can avoid the scandals of our prisons, which have been scandalous for a whole generation, without additional real, normal prison accommodation is a delusion upon which we have fed ourselves criminally long. That we have done so is no excuse, would be no excuse and ought not be urged as an excuse for touching the Bill. Those whose business it is to scrutinise and censure, those who bear the responsibility by their vote for what reaches the statute book, ought not to further the progress of the Bill into law.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): I support the Bill for what it is exactly, no more and no less—a temporary provisions Bill to deal with an immediate—

Mr. John Morris: Perhaps I may intervene before the

Home Secretary leaves the Chamber. Anxieties have been expressed by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) about whether this is a temporary Bill. My impression and my interpretation, subject to what the Home Secretary has to say, leaving on one side those provisions which are labelled permanent and which deal with the powers of a constable, are that clause 8(2)(b) means that this provision can be brought back at any time by the Home Secretary of the day faced with any problems of this kind. If we are at one on this matter, we should be told, because hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about whether this is a temporary Bill or a permanent Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): Perhaps I may help the House. As the Bill stands, what the right hon. Gentleman has said is correct, subject, of course, to the very important qualification that the approval of this House would be required.

Mr. Griffiths: With respect to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State—and, indeed, to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has an engagement elsewhere, about which I know—I am not sure that that intervention helps a great deal, in that it appears from what my hon. and learned Friend has said that embedded within the Bill is a mechanism by which, if the House should later assent, parts of it could become permanent. This is a matter that will require to be thrashed out in Committee. However, as this is a Second Reading debate, I shall confine myself to what I believe to be the broad principles with which the House is now dealing.
I support the Bill for three reasons. I have three questions and two comments. I hope that I can be brief.
I support the Bill first and foremost because of the indescribable conditions which are now arising in police cells. The reason for those conditions, above all else, is that over the years, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has just said, we have failed to make adequate provision in our prisons. But, none the less, the immediate cause is the


callous action of the Prison Officers' Association. As a result of that callous action, the conditions in many police cells now are becoming insanitary, uncivilised and dangerous.
The insanitary and uncivilised state of some of our police cells is, frankly, beyond my ability to describe. When men and women are cooped up for long periods like animals, with insufficient room to sleep, to dress or to undress, to eat their meals or to perform their necessary bodily functions, we create conditions that are a scandal in this country, and no Government could fail in the circumstances to act, and to act now, to deal with them.

Mr. Soley: Given that many of the conditions that the hon. Member has described already exist and have existed for many years in our prisons, including, as he will find if he visits them, the fording of faeces outside the walls of the prisons because otherwise the three inmates in one cell have to use the same bucket, and given that we have put up with that for years, does not the logic of the hon. Member's argument mean that we also are callous and indifferent? Or does it perhaps mean that the problem is not as simplistic as the hon. Member would have us believe and that the prison officers are no more callous than we are?

Mr. Griffiths: I have only just started my remarks. I accept that we all bear responsibility for this. Indeed, I have said that. But I support the Bill because it is a response to a crisis situation which has arisen in the police cells, and no Government could fail to respond in view of the situation that is arising in police cells all over the country. It is degrading and insanitary, and it is dangerous because of the possibilities of fights between the prisoners in those cells and of violence taking place between them and police officers.
I support the Bill, as does the Police Federation, with which, as the House knows, I have a connection. I support it strongly because it is improper to maintain such conditions in police cells. It is unacceptable that we should ask policemen and policewomen and their civilian auxiliaries to deal with the consequences, including feeding and the cleaning of cells.
My second reason for supporting the Bill is that I cannot accept that the Prison Officers' Association should in some prisons be running the show. There is a prison in my constituency, and I have a great deal of regard for the POA, some members of which I have come to know well over the years. I do not underestimate the difficult conditions in which POA members have had to work and the sense of grievance—wrongly, in my view—that they now feel. Beyond all the May arguments and all the debates about meal times and the rest, it cannot be acceptable to any Government or any Parliament that groups of prison officers and not the governors should be determining the regime in which prisoners are kept. For that second reason, it is indispensable that the House takes action to prevent the association from running some of our prisons.
My third reason for supporting what my right hon. Friend is doing is linked with the Government's cash limit policy. My right hon. Friend has been remarkably successful in obtaining from a Cabinet anxious to contain public expenditure substantial increases in the general expenditure of the Home Department. I believe that he was right to do that for the police and I think that he has been generous. However, in the circumstances, he is right to say bluntly that there is no more money. To that extent, I support what he is doing. There follows the necessary conclusion that he has reached—that, irrespective of arbitration and the May report, a Government who have no cash to pay should not and cannot provide it. For those reasons, I strongly support the Bill.
I have three questions with which I hope my hon. and learned Friend will be able to deal. The first is on clause 2(6). Although this is a Second Reading debate, I think that the issue is of general application. I refer to conferring on those who will be looking after the prisons in the appointed places the powers of a constable. I do not understand, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) evidently does not, why it is necessary for this purpose to confer on those in the Army or on any others the wide and general powers of a constable.
In so far as the powers of a constable may be needed, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will accept that they should be expressly confined within the


Bill to the actions of the Army or of any others only on premises where prisoners are being kept or during their duty in escorting prisoners to or from the courts. That would be sufficient for the purposes of the Bill. I do not think that it is right to confer the generalised powers and responsibilities, for they cannot be separated, of a constable on those who for a specific emergency purpose are being asked to perform a limited function. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to address himself to that specific question.
I was surprised and rather sorry that my right hon. Friend intervened to say that in no case would the Army carry weapons while taking part in the emergency. It follows as night the day that, if they are to have the powers and responsibilities of a constable, those will include having access to weapons if necessary. I hope that they will not be necessary. If a constable is confronted with a violent situation, as may well happen in these circumstances, he must be able to use or procure the necessary means to overcome it, and that includes arms. A constable can get arms. If my right hon. Friend is right—and I do not think he is—in conferring the powers of a constable on Army personnel who are to look after our prisons in these circumstances, why is he apparently excluding one of the powers of a constable—that of obtaining weapons if he needs to do so? That is an issue that should be clearly explained.
My second question concerns block or premature release. It falls into two parts. First, there is the release on the Home Secretary's mandate of those who are held in prisons either before they have been tried or after they have been tried and found guilty but before they have been sentenced. The second part of my question concerns the Home Secretary's ability to grant block release or individual release for those who are in prison but who have not completed their sentences—in other words, those who are released prematurely.
If a prisoner has been remanded in custody, or has been found guilty but not sentenced, and is released prematurely, there is a real danger that he will destroy what the police are doing in their inquiries. Inquiries into terrorism and many other crimes are highly complex. If a man is remanded and subsequently

released, he will be able to get in touch with his confederates. That will be especially serious when terrorist action is involved. A real danger will arise for the police as an operational fact—I do not attempt to justify it on any other ground—if those on remand are released and are in a position to provide intelligence, warnings or other information to others who may commit acts of terrorism. To release those on remand in those circumstances would be a dangerous action.
I support the Bill and the clause in question, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will accept an amendment to the effect that the Home Secretary should always have regard to police objections if they can show that release may interfere with their legitimate inquiries.
The second part of my question concerns the release of those who have been in gaol for terrible and violent crimes such as murder, rape and terrorism. I doubt very much whether my right hon. Friend would ever agree to their release. Of course he would not. He is a humane Minister with great experience. However, the Bill states that he may, if he wishes, release anyone at any time that he likes. The only proviso is that he must be satisfied that by letting them out someone else will get a place who is even more dangerous. That is not a sufficient criterion. There should be an additional provision that the Home Secretary must take into account—the public interest and the protection of the community. That should be expressly stated within the Bill. I have total trust in my right hon. Friend, but the Bill should not pass from the House until a provision has been inserted that will safeguard the public interest and the safety of our constituents.
My final question arises from the prison in my constituency. If prisoners are to be moved anywhere at any time as the Home Secretary judges the best balance between the demand for accommodation and the supply of accommodation, it is more than probable that the categories of prison will disappear pro tem—for example, it may be necessary to keep category 2 prisoners in category 1 prisons and dangerous prisoners may be sent to low security prisons. If the Government are to carry the public with them, it is necessary that some assurances are provided in the House that when prisoners


of a high degree of risk and violence are from time to time placed in relatively low security prisons the necessary resources of the Army or the police will be made available. At the end of the day, we are all concerned about the protection of the public. The Government have introduced the Bill precisely for that reason. Surely it is important to prove that they are doing so.
There is great merit in the POA being invited to consider the same arrangements as apply to the Police Federation—namely, the acceptance of a no-strike clause because of the nature of the duties of its members. I merely leave that before the House. My hon. and learned Friend should consider with the association whether in return for accepting a settlement the two sides should proceed towards establishing a concordat along those lines. It would be in the public interest to do so. We should keep those who have no business in prison, out of it. The Police Federation has often suggested that drunks and debtors should not be sent to gaol. This is neither the time nor place to bring about general changes. However, I agree that the Bill should trigger the Government and Parliament into addressing the main question, and those two categories, at least, in the normal sense, should not be put in gaol.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Those who have read the ninth chapter of the May report will know that the prison officers' dispute is a matter of Byzantine difficulty. Claim 16 is responsible for the crisis. The Home Secretary prayed in aid the decision of the May committee in his stance against the prison officers, but it is significant that in paragraph 9.25 the May report states:
We have found this claim very difficult to resolve. The manner in which the relevant paragraphs have been drafted creates an unwelcome ambiguity…. Furthermore, in so far as the FGS Code of Instructions is a document which was agreed between the Home Office and the POA, it is plainly undesirable, in the interests of future agreements, whether in the fields of pay, industrial relations, or whatever, that there should be no sanction against the breach of any of its provisions.
The implication is that the issue was finely balanced. Strong arguments were put by both sides, and the May committee's decision cannot be regarded as irrefutable. It should not be thought that a

reasonable alternative course cannot be taken.
We face a major crisis in our prisons. There have been calls for draconian legislation to be passed within 24 hours and for troops to be brought in to look after prisoners, with all the difficulties that that will create. It is odd that such a crisis should turn on a matter of such minutiae as that particular claim. Perhaps sense will prevail and a reasonable decision will be made. It is not impossible to send this matter to arbitration. The cost of sensible arbitration might be much less than the cost of bringing troops in to deal with the present circumstances and less than the cost of housing prisoners in camps that were never intended for that purpose.
The prison officers have a case. Although I did not have responsibility for such affairs when I was a Minister at the Home Office, I was on the fringe of such issues. I understand the difficulties that the Home Office experiences when it negotiates with the Prison Officers' Association. Such difficulties may also be experienced in negotiations with the police. One has to negotiate with a disciplined service that is not akin to a normal industrial occupation. Usually, workers organise themselves through their trade unions and negotiate with their employers. In such circumstances, both sides understand the limitations of their environment. In the old days, when most prison officers were recruited directly from the Army, there was a tendency to accept the authority of the hierarchy at the Home Office. However, most prison officers have been employed in industry. Many prison officers have worked on the shop floor and have been involved in trade union negotiations. They expect a different attitude from the one that they now receive from Home Office officials. Whatever the virtues of Home Office officials, it is no part of their expertise to conduct industrial negotiations on such finely tuned matters as claim 16. I recognise that the issue involves the Whitley council, but I am not sure that that is a sensible way of discussing such things.
We have created a new quango, namely, the Prison Board. It would be better to give the Prison Board power to negotiate directly with prison officers. There should be a structure similar to that found in business. In that way,


better conditions could be created. The May committee had something to say about that, but I am not sure whether it will be translated into the new provisions. There is still some hope that we shall not put the provisions of the Bill into effect. We are dealing not with temporary legislation but with legislation that will remain on the statute book after the three-month period. It can be reactivated by order. Why is it necessary to rush the Bill through in one day?
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was right to say that clause 1 may be justified if no more prison cells are available after tomorrow morning. I can understand why we might have to accept clause 1 in one day. However, we certainly do not have to enact clause 2 in a day. I doubt whether we need to enact clause 5 in a day. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was right to point out that clause 5 allows people to come out of prison despite the fact that we are dealing with a dispute that has resulted in prison officers refusing to let people into prison.
Perhaps we should take the time to consider legislation that might be needed on a permanent basis to deal with a future crisis. I should be reluctant to accept such legislation, but there may be a case for it. If so, such legislation should be considered with the normal decorum. Today, we need only give the Home Secretary the power to deal with the present crisis. That crisis means putting people into Army camps because they cannot be sent to prison. The Bill could be reduced in scope and we hope that when the dispute ends the legislation could be dropped. If necessary, the Home Office could then introduce further, better-considered legislation to deal with some of the difficulties.
I do not understand why the powers of a constable are needed. It is possible to argue that constables should have the powers of prison officers. If those involved are to have the powers of a constable only whilst acting as persons appointed by the Secretary of State and while responsible for the custody of persons detained in approved places, they will not need the powers of a constable outside such approved places or in any circumstances other than that of taking a person from court to an approved place. One does not need a private to stop a

driver for drunken driving. That is beyond the purport of the Bill's powers. Therefore, all that is needed is that he should have the powers of a prison officer.
We could do that quite easily by saying "a prison officer" rather than "a constable". When I asked the Home Secretary about this, I was surprised not to get an answer. The Home Secretary is the first to tell us that he does not always understand all the details of the Bills that he brings before us, but I should have thought that this was more than a detail. Indeed, it is a fundamental principle that one should not create the power of a constable, which is quite extensive, even within the confines of an Army camp, unless it is absolutely necessary to do so.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that I am correct in reading the text of the Bill as meaning that the powers will not be confined to places of detention but are general powers. That would mean that any person—an Army officer, a soldier or anybody else who was moved in by the Home Secretary—could come down here and arrest the hon. Gentleman and me under the general powers of constables, which have absolutely nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. Lyon: Unless I am wrong, I should have thought that the Home Office answer to that is the words "while acting as such". That delimits the power of the constable so that it can operate only while that person is acting as a person approved for the purpose or as a person assisting such a person.

Mr. Brittan: Perhaps it would be convenient if I intervened on this point. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) is quite right about the meaning of the words "while acting as such". The power applies only to any person approved by the Secretary of State as an officer responsible for the custody of persons to be detained in an approved place, or one authorised to assist such person. In winding up, I proposed to deal with the powers of a constable. Perhaps it would be better for me to deal with the matter now, as it seems to be recurring. It is really quite simple. It is exactly the same as the powers of a prison officer, because under section 8 of the Prison Act 1952 the prison officer has all the powers, authority, protection and privileges of a constable.

Mr. Lyon: I am sorry that when we get an answer from the Home Office it is one that can be so easily blown aside. If we are trying to create the powers of a prison officer, that is what we should say. If the consequence of that is that the prison officer has the powers of a constable through the Prison Act, so be it. But we should not seek to create doubt by trying to create the powers of a constable. I have an amendment down on this matter, and so have many others, so I have no doubt that we shall discuss this point in Committee.
The next point that I wish to raise is the whole question of remanding prisoners. The Home Secretary indicated in his intervention that the clause was not intended to deal with people who might not be legally represented. There is no such provision in the clause. I have an amendment down to create that qualification to the clause, but, as I read the clause, it is perfectly possible for a man who is not legally represented not to be brought before the court under the provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act in the appropriate seven-day period. Therefore, he will lose that right that he has under the Magistrates' Courts Act to make representations at a regular time about bail and about the possibility of bringing on an early trial and so on. That is a major weakness in the Bill.
Although I hate to concede it, we talked yesterday about the draconian powers in the Bill, but it is a fact that on the whole the draconian powers can be exercised only in favour of a prisoner on remand or in custody and therefore they are to his benefit. But this is one area where it can be done in the other direction. The Minister tells me that it is the only one, and I am glad to be reassured about my reading of the Bill, but that makes it all the more desirable that we should qualify the clause very seriously. This is the one area where there is an intrusion into civil liberties. A man will not be brought before the court unless there is a request by the court. That is not sufficient. If it were, the Magistrates' Courts Act would never have been introduced in the way that it was. If all that is required is that the court should decide when the man should be brought before it, it would not be necessary to make the qualification made in the Act.
Therefore, I hope that we might change that point, even if the Bill goes through.
I can leave the rest of the Bill to the amendments at a later stage. It has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) that it is a nice point that when we have this difficulty in the prisons the Home Secretary can come forward and introduce a Bill to override the power and discretion of the judiciary without so much as a 24-hour leave. If that is possible in order to deal with a critical situation such as we have at present, what should we do about the critical situation that has arisen over the past 10 to 15 years? The kind of conditions that obtain in the prisons and the cells at present are nothing uncommon in the experience of the past 10 or 15 years. There are many prisons where conditions have been intolerable because of overcrowding for a very long time.
I take issue with the right hon. Member for Down, South about the total scope of the inadequacy of prison accommodation. A considerable section of prison accommodation has been built since the last war. The long-term prisoners, the people in category 1 prisons, are, on the whole, better housed and have better conditions than most of the rest of the prison population. The real threat to the prison population is in the local prisons, which are severely overcrowded. In those prisons the conditions have been intolerable for many years. When people say that we should reduce the prison population, they really mean that we should cope with the prisoners who are serving sentences of less than four years—in other words, the less serious offenders. If we were to halve the sentences of the people who are serving a sentence of four years or less, and if we introduced a maximum of two years, we would reduce the prison population from its present 46,000 to 25,000.
In those circumstances, it seems to me that there is a case, fully underlined by the Bill, saying that we cannot go on saying that the Executive cannot override judicial discretion. The judicial discretion cannot take the resources which are necessary to provide the proper conditions in our prisons. We must decide what they should be. If there are cash limits and restricted public expenditure, and if resources which are allocated to prisons should be allocated elsewhere, it is a


matter of public policy to be able to say that the judges cannot send people to prison for as long as they, and they alone, think proper. It must be right in these circumstances for the Government to be able to say "We cannot do it in this way, we can do it only in a different way, and therefore the power of the court must be limited." If that can be done for this crisis and if the constitutional relationship can be overruled now, surely we can set the precedent and do it on a wider scale in the future.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Surely this Parliament sets the limits on all sentences, and the judiciary operates within the limits laid down by Parliament itself in every statutory offence. That is a very different matter from interference by the Executive, although in this case and for this limited purpose I approve of such interference.

Mr. Lyon: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made that point on a number of occasions. I hope that he will visit Holland to see for himself. Compared with overall size of population, the prison population there is half the size of ours. That is because, on the whole, sentences are much shorter. The Dutch have a public prosecutor system. The public prosecutor can suggest to the judge the length of sentence, although the judge is not bound by that. In our system, the judge gets no indication from counsel about the length of sentence and has total discretion, subject to the Court of Appeal overruling him. Holland, like us, is an industrial country. It has the same pattern of criminal activity, and there has been no upsurge in crime because of shorter sentences. That suggests that it is not necessary to have longer sentences to deter crime. Parliament should tell judges that the present level of sentencing is intolerable and should be cut down. We would then cut our prison population and make it easier to deal with those in prison and with prison staff. A case is made out by the Bill for taking that overall view.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the Bill is passed it will create a precedent by which this House and Parliament may interfere generally with the length of sentences?

Mr. Lyon: If the appeal of the Home Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice, reflected in a number of decisions in the past few weeks, does not succeed and a voluntary limit is not set by judges, this House will have to consider whether a maximum length of sentence should be ordained. The Bill sets the precedent.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Many of the May committee's recommendations concerning prison officers have been implemented. We are basically dealing with the question of meal break allowances, which, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, was specifically looked at by the committee. Although it was not quite sure what should be done. it rejected the idea that what the Prison Officers' Association is asking for should be allowed.
With allowances, prison officers, in their first year of service, have an income of about £8,000. If the claim were allowed, these officers would get about £1,000 in back pay. That is what the dispute is about, why the POA has taken action and why the Bill is necessary.
As far as I can ascertain, Labour Members want the matter to go to arbitration. That would solve nothing. We had an independent inquiry, which reported almost exactly a year ago. Arbitration could look at nothing that the May committee has not closely examined. As I indicated, May rejected the claim.
With the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). few hon. Gentlemen have recognised that the Bill concerns the issue of law and order. It deals with the immediate problem that faces the Home Secretary, which he must tackle as a matter of urgency and emergency, albeit on a temporary basis. I do not imagine that my right hon. Friend wants to exercise those powers other than on a temporary basis. No Home Secretary would exercise such powers without realising the difficult and sensitive issue involved.
The POA's action is a direct interference with the working of law and order and the operation of justice. Until recently, prison officers were in the front line in protecting the system. Industrial action is to be regretted. If prison officers fail to protect our criminal justice system, the Home Secretary must do so. His first


priority is to protect the public, and he must support the police, on whom there is an intolerable burden.
The irony or tragedy is that, while we are debating the matter and the POA is taking industrial action, talks on the claim are proceeding at the Home Office. Indications are that they are going well.
A further tragedy is that the militants in the POA do not speak for their entire membership. I believe that a secret ballot would show minimal support for the industrial action. We must not fall into the trap of categorising all members of the POA as militant.
I was until recently chairman of a board of visitors of a training prison. I know that many prison officers regret and reject the increasing militancy of their union. They feel that their disciplined service and sense of duty are being undermined. Prison governors feel that their authority is being undermined. What the Home Office says will not be obeyed unless it has the approval of the militants in the POA. That is no way to run a prison. The Bill affords an opportunity to say so.
Let us make no mistake. This is a battle for the control of the penal system in our prisons. It is a battle that most observers, all prison governors and many prison officers hope will be won. If my right hon. Friend were to give way now, no directive from the Home Office would be acted on without the militants in the POA deciding whether it should be carried out. That would be intolerable, and I believe that most of us realise it.
It would also be dangerous, and we cannot expect the police to handle that dangerous situation indefinitely. The Bill, and especially clause 1, is necessary. It will relieve the police and protect the public. I believe that it will therefore be welcomed on both sides of the House.
The Bill enables the Home Secretary to deal with two other matters that have been pressing for some time. The first is the question of an extension in the granting of bail. Too often magistrates, on the advice of police, who are a cautious body, shrink from granting bail. The Nottingham justices case illustrates that fact. It was decided that once bail had been refused by a bench the application for bail could not be reopened, even before

a different bench. That was a restrictive legal decision. It is a matter of law, but if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is anxious to see the granting of bail extended he should try to reverse that decision.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sure that my hon. Friend has not forgotten that an offender remanded in custody after the refusal of an application for bail always has the right to appeal to a judge in chambers.

Mr. Alexander: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, but a prisoner is not always entitled to legal aid for that purpose and it is sometimes difficult for him to find the facilities or even to know how to go about getting bail from a judge in chambers. We should make it possible for him to go to a fresh bench or a Crown court judge in the local community. That would avoid the need to go to a judge in chambers. It is not always easy for those in small towns to get access to a judge in chambers. He might be far away on circuit.
The other point that could be dealt with in the Bill is that there are a number of offences for which prison is, by common consent, not appropriate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) mentioned debt and the non-payment of fines. I would add, though it may be controversial, prostitution and drunkenness. There are many offences for which prison is no longer appropriate. We are still in the dark ages in the way that we punish certain offences.
My right hon. Friend can seize out of the present situation an opportunity to support prison governors, to strengthen the prison department and the system of justice and to deal, at the same time, with the anomalies in the bail system and the sentencing system. Out of this temporary measure, may he go a long way towards reforming and reviving our penal system. All those of good will must surely wish the Bill well.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) has experience as the chairman of a prison board, but I ask him to look again at chapter 9 of the May committee report. As the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, it is full of equivocation and there


are at least two claims on which the committee was unable to adjudicate. The matter is not as clearcut as the hon. Member for Newark suggested.
I greatly regret the need for the Bill. I have three prisons in my constituency. One of my first acts on being elected to the House six and a half years ago was to initiate an Adjournment debate on the situation in our prisons. Those of us who have attended debates on the prison service have been warning for a long time about the problems and the feelings of frustration among prison officers. As recently as August, we had a good debate on the prison service and many pleas were made from both sides of the House about the problem of overcrowding. Both Administrations that have been in office while I have been an hon. Member have not moved quickly enough in dealing with the problem.
I accept that the Home Secretary moved quickly on some of the recommendations of the May committee, and I appreciate that that made a substantial difference to morale in the prison service.
The high security Albany prison on the Isle of Wight was built in the early 1960s and, from its initiation, has had far more trouble than any other prison in the country. The design was wrong and there was low morale among prison officers. They were continually asking to be moved, and at one time there was an insurrection in the prison.
The atmosphere has changed completely and I pay tribute to the governor, Mr. Honey. Unfortunately, he is to be moved and the whole of the top administration and some of the chief officers are going. In the past two or three years Mr. Honey has brought peace to the prison. Lord Belstead visited Albany about a month ago. There is a different outlook there and a good relationship between the governor and the prison officers.
There was also trouble at the old-established prison of Parkhurst. Action lasting more than a year was taken there to prevent the normal working of the prison, but there is now a different attitude at Parkhurst and Camp Hill as well. The improvements in the atmosphere arise largely from the recommendation of the May committee. The prisons on the Isle of Wight are functional group system establishments and

the prison officers are paid for their meal breaks under that shift system. Retrospective payments have been made, and that, together with the change of governors, has led to a different outlook in all three prisons. The tragedy of the Bill is that all of that will be put in jeopardy.
Of the 22,000 prison officers in this country, about 13,000 are on the FGS arrangement and are paid for their meal breaks. The 9,000 who work under the Vee scheme are the subject of the dispute. Of course, members of the Prison Officers' Association feel obliged to support their colleagues in their claim for payment for meal breaks. I cannot believe that with more imagination by the Home Office a solution could not have been arrived at by now.
I support the plea of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that the matter must be resolved. If the Bill becomes an Act, the prison officers at Albany, Parkhurst and Camp Hill will be at loggerheads with their administrations. It is already happening at Camp Hill. Mr. Bester is just about to retire and he finds himself at loggerheads with the administration. The officers will have to support their colleagues, and all the good will that has been created over the past two or three years, and particularly in the past 12 months, will be put in jeopardy. That is something which the House should consider seriously.
There are many other problems still to be resolved. The May committee did not deal with them all. Anyone who has prison officers in his constituency knows that there is a myriad of nonsenses. Not only are there prison officers, but there are officers who are instructors and who do not have the same meal breaks as others. There are civilian technicians. night security guards and all sorts of staff working in prisons under different rules. All this must be dealt with.
There is then the very touchy point of the inconvenience of locality allowance, which May recommends should be phased out. If that is done, it will be another issue that will take the roof off in a constituency such as mine, where the prison officers are receiving the allowance and think that they should be put on a par with Dartmoor.
The very fact that the Bill may be passed tonight will lead to unnecessary


grievances and unnecessary disputes within prisons that have gone through a bad time but now, happily, have a much better working relationship. That, in particular, is very sad.
I should like to deal briefly with the Bill. A Bill that contained simply clause 1 would seem to be adequate. I trust that we shall be told not only that Low Newton prison will be provided but that if there is to be other accommodation it will be of an adequate standard and that we shall not take people out of our police cells and put them into disgusting places as alternatives. What is being done about providing places now?
Clause 2 has been dealt with adequately in the debate. We utterly oppose the clause and think that it should be deleted. If it is not, it must be amended. The leader in The Times deals with that matter adequately.
Clause 3 should be seen as the start of a new policy. It is welcome, and I hope that the Home Secretary will make it permanent. This is where we should be getting to grips with the problems of the prison service.
I turn to clause 4. It should also be seen as a matter of course that community service orders be substituted for the ludicrous prison sentences on fine defaulters and others. I believe that the annual turnover is over 16,000.
The early release of prisoners under clause 5 seems to us rather "iffy" and "butty". We do not like clause 5(2)(b). People should not be released simply because they happen to be in a particular prison, which is how the subsection seems to read. It makes a mockery of penal policies and concepts of justice. If people are to be released, it should be on grounds of behaviour and offence and not just because they happen to be in an overcrowded prison or one where the officers are particularly militant. I hope that we shall receive an explanation.
Clause 8 is particularly worrying. I echo the points that have already been made about it. The Minister has already intervened on the subject. If subsection (2) (b) means that the Bill can be reenacted on an affirmative order, how are we supposed to read subsection 5 (b), which says

it is declared in the order that it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of urgency it is necessary to make the order without a draft having been so approved"?
Does that mean it can be enacted without an affirmative order? We need much more explanation if we are to give the Bill a Second Reading. I am not prepared to support its Second Reading, but if other hon. Members are we should all have assurances about that clause.
I hope that the Home Office will make one final attempt to reach a settlement with the prison officers. I do not see why the matter should go to arbitration. May does not give all the answers in chapter 9; it leaves some questions open, and they seem ideal matters for arbitration. The prison officers are prepared to accept it whether they win or lose. Is not that the answer? It always used to be when positions were reversed and hon. Members now in Government were in Opposition. They were then constantly suggesting that disputes should go to arbitration. It is the only sensible way to resolve the matter, and I beg that that should be done.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I accept that the Government must break the present attitude that the taking of precipitate industrial action always pays off for those who take it, whatever the merits of their case. I also fully accept that the Government must govern and that this means from time to time not hiding behind the skirts of independent arbitration bodies. I further accept that in the circumstances of the present crisis the provisions of the Bill may well be necessary.
I have to say, however, that in my constituency I have one of the most modern dispersal prisons, at Long Lartin, stuffed full, among its more permanent population, with familiar faces, most of whom would like to blow the place up and some of whom I think have already tried to do so. Naturally, one has had close communication with the branch of the Prison Officers' Association there about this matter, perhaps too close communication. The branch is extremely moderate. I am told that many of its members voted Conservative at the last election.
Secondly, the members of that branch would not be beneficiaries of an outcome of the present dispute that was favourable to the association, because they are on a rota duty system which enables them to have compensation for meals. Nor do they particularly like the fact of the dispute, because they know that it is making their job with the prison population increasingly difficult. The prison population at Long Lartin is becoming very restive. The prison officers are also worried about the effects of escalation on security within the prison and the safety with which they carry out their job.
However, my impression is that the prison officers' position is hardening. For instance, I understand that they will be prepared to black Frankland prison indefinitely if there is an escalation, with the use of the Army in that prison, and if the dispute is not settled.
I fully appreciate the dilemma of the Government and of Home Office Ministers, but I am deeply concerned that victory in this dispute may be pyrrhic if the effects are finally to break the brittle morale of the prison service. For better or worse, the prison officers already consider themselves to be the forgotten branch of our services for the maintenance of law and order.
As to the immediate issue that lies behind the necessity for the Bill, if a new duty system is introduced, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said was planned, and if that eventually irons out the anomalies between the different rota systems and the compensatory arrangements for meal breaks, at the least the issue would seem to me not to have the qualities of indelibility.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) suggested that a compromise might include surrender of the right to strike. If the Government think that a compromise must be found, whether face-saving or not, and perhaps including what my hon. Friend suggested, it should be found sooner rather than later. In this dispute above all others, it is vital that virility is not measured in terms of how long everyone holds out.
A protracted dispute involving the lengthy imposition of the measures outlined in the Bill could be tragic for all

sides, not least for the prison officers, who will have to cope in an increasingly explosive situation. The nation certainly has nothing to gain from a prison service whose spirit is broken.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I heartily endorse a great deal of what the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) said. We are, essentially, dealing with the consequences of an industrial relations situation that should never have been allowed to develop to the point that it has reached. That the Bill has had to be presented in the form that it has taken, with the disruption of parliamentary business, is a sign of the Home Secretary's failure properly to do his job. That a Conservative Home Secretary should preside over mounting disorder in our prisons and our police cells, about which he obstinately refuses to do anything constructive, and that he should therefore propose massive alterations in fundamental laws, is a condemnation of his attitude towards the prison officers and the prison service during the months that he has been in office.
It is an erosion of possibly only one aspect of civil liberties but a very important erosion of civil liberties for a remand prisoner not to be called before the court to be able to apply for bail or to give reasons why he should not further be held on remand in custody. Whatever the Home Secretary or his hon. Friends may say, it is a fundamental and serious interference with the independence of the judiciary to bring forward the clauses in the Bill designed to secure early release in the manner that the Home Secretary proposes or to direct not just magistrates' courts, but specified magistrates' courts, that they shall not imprison fine and maintenance defaulters. I believe, sincerely and fervently, in the need to stop imprisoning fine and maintenance defaulters and in a system of early release, but we should legislate properly at our leisure and not impose panic measures to deal with what is necessarily a temporary crisis for which the Home Secretary must bear a great deal of responsibility.
All this is unnecessary. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the prison officers' case in this instance—I do not wish to


get drawn into that matter—the fact is that they believe that they have a deep and legitimate grievance. As anyone who has spoken to them will know, they feel strongly that they have been misled and that they have not been properly treated. They feel that they have a justifiable case. That is their belief, to which they are entitled.
On the other hand, it is the Home Secretary's belief that he has treated the prison officers fairly and properly. He may well have done so. He is on record as saying that, even if the matter were to be sent to arbitration, the merits of the case would be clearly on his side and he would win overwhelmingly and convincingly. If that is the case, there is no excuse for all the disruption that is being caused in our prisons and police cells. We live in the real world, not in a world of virility competition. It is not a matter of the Home Secretary maintaining his prestige or status. We have to deal with real people who have real grievances and get them to co-operate willingly and enthusiastically in running the prisons. In those circumstances, I do not see what the Home Secretary has to lose. The right hon. Gentleman says that there has been arbitration before. That is not believed. So there should be arbitration again. If the Home Secretary is right in his conviction that the case is on his side, he will win.
The right hon. Gentleman has nothing to lose and a great deal to gain by announcing tonight that he will accept impartial arbitration. I have been given assurances—I am sure that the Minister of State knows this, because he has also received them—that the industrial action would be called off tonight and there would be no need for the Bill or any of the measures that the Home Secretary will be required to take under it. It is inexcusable for a Home Secretary holding the onerous responsibilities of his office not to accept a decent, reasonable and civilised way out of the confrontation.
I accept that prison officers, as individuals or as an organisation, are not the easiest of persons to deal with. I have been probably as critical, if not more critical, of their actions as any hon. Member. There have been dozens of industrial disputes throughout the life of this Government in virtually every penal establishment

It is the prison officers who have held up the Government's wishes to extend the abolition of censorship of mail. It is the prison officers who are thwarting the attempt to introduce pay telephones into prisons. It is the prison officers who have largely prevented visitors' centres or proper access to solicitors and such like. Industrial action at Wormwood Scrubs early this year meant that 150 young offenders had to be accommodated in police cells. Because of a series of disputes, another 150 prisoners had to be accommodated in dormitories, libraries, corridors and cupboards. This is an ongoing situation of industrial disputes and grievances within the prison service. It is nothing new.
In those circumstances, it is remarkable that the Home Secretary did not accede to and implement the recommendations of the May committee. The committee's comment on the grievance procedure was:
One of the features of the present system is that except in regard to the arrangements for taking arbitrable matters to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, no guidelines exist for dealing with grievances and other matters which either staff or management would like to pursue".
That is stated in paragraph 10.45. The committee went on to recommend the drawing up of a national procedural agreement that would also contain provision for local variations to deal with the Liverpool-type situation. It was essential, the committee said, that such an agreement should include
a clear statement of what issues are reserved for national resolution, the nature of negotiations at establishment level, the time to be allowed for each stage, the form in which the regional office will be involved, how the headquarters organisations on each side will operate, what forms of conciliation and arbitration are appropriate (if it is decided to include them) and the nature of unacceptable industrial action.
That is stated in paragraph 10.47. More than a year after the May committee reported, the Government have not implemented any of those recommendations. Despite what the Home Secretary says—he is entitled to talk about his other activities in introducing the May committee's recommendations—in this one crucial area of industrial relations that has beset the prison service, not just under this Government but under previous Governments, he has not taken the recommendations sufficiently seriously to


try to develop a proper disputes procedure for dealing with legitimate grievances. That could have been done. It should be done now, urgently.
It is not simply the dispute over meal allowances that has angered the prison officers. They also feel, as they have said publicly on many occasions and as they stated to me on Friday and again, yesterday and today, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) met them, that they have been consistently neglected by Governments of both parties over a long period of time. They feel that their loyalty has been taken for granted and that the attitude of disregard for the prison service is indicated by the manner in which successive Governments and the House of Commons have ignored the warnings from prison officers, the prison and borstal governors and everyone else about the so-called worsening crisis in our prisons.
It is not just the matter of overcrowding, with about 40 per cent. of prisoners having to be accommodated two or three to a cell built for one in Victorian times and being locked up for 23 hours every day. There are also many people consistently in prison who should never have been put there in the first place. I am talking of the 446 mentally disordered offenders. No one can argue that it is right, proper or appropriate that they should be put in prison. The Home Secretary will acknowledge that prisons cannot adequately care for or treat those offenders. Yet they are imprisoned day after day, not because anyone suggests that this is right or proper but simply because successive Governments and the community have not been prepared to provide the alternative resources in the community and in NHS hospitals to deal with them.
It is immoral and indefensible that such individuals should be in prison. It is unacceptable to ask prison officers who are not trained and are not skilled in dealing with them to care and to contain mentally disordered and mentally ill offenders. The same, it can be said, applies to the 3,074 habitual drunkards imprisoned last year. We put our hands on our hearts, say that they are sick, not bad, and that they should be treated in detoxification units or hostels within the community. As long ago as 1971, the habitual drunken

offenders report proposed, as a matter of urgency, a national comprehensive system of care and aftercare with 2,000 hostel places immediately and 5,000 as the eventual target, and with detoxification centres in every major urban area.
Nine years later, we have 65 hostels providing 750 places and two experimental detoxification centres. As a result, we imprison vulnerable, deprived and disadvantaged people who have no pressure group and no trade union, who are not articulate and who have no political clout; and no one cares.
Prison officers care. They have to bear the brunt of the situation. They feel bitter and resentful at being seen as gaolers and warders of people whom they cannot adequately deal with and who they realise should be better and more compassionately treated by other means, in what is claimed to be a caring society.
We are also talking about those dependent on drugs, vagrants and people imprisoned for no other offence than that they are single, homeless people who are found guilty of an offence of begging and sleeping rough. We send them to prison. Many of them are of pensionable age. Between 200 and 300 such people are sent to prison each year. Nobody says that they are sent there because prison is the proper place for them or that they are a danger to society. They are sent there because we are not prepared to provide the alternatives.
The Home Secretary says that in the context of the emergency he intends to take powers to direct magistrates not to imprison fine and maintenance defaulters. I say "Amen" to that. A total of 2,071 maintenance defaulters and 17,044 fine defaulters were sent to prison last year. The Payne committe, the Finer committee, the Wootton committee and the all-party penal affairs group, the Expenditure Committee and the advisory council on the penal system—almost uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all—said that it is an essay in economic and social futility to imprison maintenance defaulters. The same considerations apply to fine defaulters. Yet, while everybody agrees with that, until today no Home Secretary has been prepared to come to the House and seek to legislate to prevent the imprisonment of such individuals.
The legislation is offered us as an emergency. If the Home Secretary can say to the public "Do not worry. You will not be threatened; you will not be harmed. In no way will the non-imprisonment of fine and maintenance defaulters destroy law and order or threaten your security", he can ensure that we have a permanent legislative enactment. If he can say that, he can ensure that our judicial and penal systems are no longer slurred and that our overcrowded and obsolescent prisons are no longer clobbered.
The same is true of the early release scheme. The Home Secretary says that he is taking powers to release individual prisoners in spite of the lip service that he and his party pay to the independent judiciary. When a Conservative is Home Secretary, the party's scruples and principles conveniently disappear.
If he could say that there is no threat to the community in releasing prisoners earlier than their official date of release. he could accept the recommendations of the Expenditure Committee, the penal affairs group and the advisory council on the penal system. He could follow the example set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and introduce a conditional early release scheme to which his Northern Ireland Ministers will pay testimony and which proved to be singularly successful. Prisoners have been released into the community early with no increase in the reconviction rate. If such a system works in Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary can make it work in a temporary measure, he can find the legislative time—I hope that he will—to ensure that such a system becomes a permanent enactment.
I hope that we shall not hear from either the Home Secretary or his hon. Friends, when we are arguing for the House to legislate to reduce the maximum length of sentences which the courts can impose, the hypocrisy that the Conservative Party does not interfere with the judiciary. It is interfering on a massive and extensive scale tonight. If the Home Secretary can rush a Bill through all its stages without a proper opportunity to examine the amendments which will be tabled at 10 o'clock and which we shall

debate at 10 minutes past 10 o'clock, and interfere with the judiciary in a massive way, surely he can come to the House and do what we want him to do.
The Home Secretary constantly exhorts the judiciary to impose shorter sentences. He can legislate to reduce the maximum length of sentence across the board so that we do not experience the anomaly and barbarity of having the highest per capita prison population in Western Europe. We imprison more people for longer periods than any comparable civilised country.
The Home Secretary has disillusioned me by introducing the Bill. But he has also heartened me in that, if he can act now, some of the actions for which many of us have argued strenuously inside and outside the House can be taken and become permanent features.
I expect that the Home Secretary will get the Bill tonight, although I and some of my hon. Friends will attempt to delay it at least until the early hours. That will not be difficult. We are also living in the real world. We accept that eventually the Home Secretary will get his Bill. I should like him to get it at 10 o'clock so that I can go home. However, I shall not allow him to do that. He might not achieve the Bill until 5 o'clock or 10 o'clock tomorrow, whatever tomorrow's business.
The Bill has been criticised from both sides, but it could be made better. If the Home Secretary were to accept that it is unnecessary for the Act to remain on the statute book for three months and that a month was more legitimate, that would be preferable. If he accepted that it is totally unnecessary for the Bill to lie on the statute book as a permanent measure to be activated at any time simply by order but that it is, as its long title suggests, a temporary measure and falls at the end of a month, that would be preferable. It would be better if he provided proper safeguards for remand prisoners so that at least they were legally represented every week in court and perhaps could appear in court themselves if they wished.
It would be better if the Home Secretary could indicate that what he is doing to day in terms of fine and maintenance defaulters and early release is part of his long-term strategy for the prison service.
I believe that, if he did that, some of my hon. Friends would find their beds welcoming them at an earlier hour.
I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will oppose the Bill in principle on Second Reading on the ground that it is unnecessary. If the Home Secretary had been doing his job properly and been sensitive to and aware of the industrial relations grievances in the prison service, it would not have been necessary to ask for these extensive and inordinate powers. We shall also vote against the Bill as a censure on the Government for the mishandling of their policy's main plank—law and order. The Conservatives have shown themselves to be a party of disorder arid of law-breaking.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: My anger at my Government having to introduce legislation providing for executive bail, interference with judicial sentences and court hearings in the absence of the accused—and I accept the strictures that have been placed on them by everyone who has spoken in the debate—is matched only by my anger and astonishment at the action taken by the prison officers who are the cause of this legislation.
I have always admired the prison officers. I have worked professionally with them for many years. Their dedication to their service has been remarkable. In the past, the service has been a Cinderella service. However, the conditions have improved out of all recognition. Yet the prison officers are led to believe by their new leaders that there is merit in their claim and that they should behave in what I consider to be an astonishing and deplorable way.
The prison officers are trying to blackmail the Government and the nation over a comparatively small claim with nothing less than the threat of anarchy and the breakdown of our system of law and order. They are betraying the cause of law and order which is the very reason for their existence. That is shocking. Those who are leading the Prison Officers' Association should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, and someone in the debate should say so.
I do not believe that the rank and file of prison officers really understand the

ramifications of their actions, although they might understand the hardship. Do their leaders really believe that they are justified in their behaviour, which is producing the gruesome effects which were so eloquently outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)? Do they seriously think that the public are behind them in their attempt to make chaos out of our legal system when their claim is for nothing more vital than allowances for some meal breaks and when the Home Secretary is already negotiating to sort out the anomalies? Do they really believe that the public support them when they have been so generously treated by the award which followed the May settlement and which left most prison officers earning between £8,000 and £10,000 per year?

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If the claim is so trivial, if it is not the vital issue that the prison officers claim it to be and not worth the disruption, does not the same consideration apply to the Home Secretary? Is it not also unnecessary for him to be so obstinate in refusing to settle the claim which is causing all the disruption?

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. Member has already made that point at length. His argument does not find favour with me, the Government or any of my hon. Friends.
I do not think that the public are aware that the prison officers are no longer the downtrodden Cinderella service they once were. In 1978 the average prison officer with some years' service earned £6,350. Now, the same prison officer earns £8,900 without his rent alowances. Taking into account basic salary, shift pay, premium pay, overtime pay—which averages 13 hours—and the rent allowance or its equivalent, the average prison officer earns between £8,000 and £10,000 a year. That is a decided improvement on anything that went before.
Do the prison officers' leaders seriously believe that they have the public behind them when they are holding the Government and the public to ransom over this claim, bearing in mind that what they are seeking has already been examined by a Royal Commission and found not to be justified? Do they honestly believe that they will have sympathy from those in society who have not been fortunate


enough to get any improved award, without demanding further improvements? Do they think that the public reaction would be favourable if the public were to realise just how little control of our prison system is in the hands of some prison governors and how much is now in the hands of the Prison Officers' Association or its leaders?
What is the Home Secretary's position? Do the prison officers think that they would have got such a good deal from the Home Secretary if there had been any question of his going back to the Cabinet at this difficult economic time and asking for more? If the Government gave way to the prison officers' demand for arbitration and extra money were awarded, how long would it be before every other group in the public service with some anomaly sought to gain its end by industrial action? What chance then would there be for this country's economic recovery?
The Government, therefore, will not, cannot and must not give way. Since the Bill is the least action necessary in this unhappy state of affairs, I support it. The fears that I have heard expressed today about its detail are exaggerated. I support the Home Secretary's refusal to go back to May. For what purpose should he? Would it be to oblige Mr. Justice May and his committee to change their minds? Is that likely? If they did not, what then?
I hope that the Bill will never have to be implemented and that it will sink back into the dark depths of the Home Office vaults whence it came. It is not too late for the leaders of the Prison Officers' Association to see sense and realise how little support they have in the country and how little justice there is in their claim when all the consequences are properly considered. It is not too late for the negotiators to get down to negotiating the removal of the anomalies, which, as has been said many times, my right hon. Friend is most anxious to see resolved. For goodness sake, let them see some sense. A more responsible and reasonable approach would do more than anything to relieve the longer-term crisis in our prisons, a crisis which has been causing so many of us in the House so much deep concern for so long.

Mr. Clive Soley: I listened with amazement and some considerable concern to the Home Secretary's statement yesterday. I heard him go well beyond the position I had expected him to adopt in taking the powers he is seeking. These powers are unjustified and dangerous. At one stage I began to think that he would go on to abolish the courts and Parliament for a temporary period. As he spoke, I considered the well-established idea that democracies are seldom lost overnight but are lost by being whittled away a little at a time. I remembered, too, that emergency legislation has been introduced more and more frequently during this century and has become the norm rather than the exception. That is a matter of considerable concern and it should underline some of our anxieties tonight.
I am sure, for two reasons, that the Government will get their majority tonight. Those reasons have been spelt out repeatedly by Conservative Back Benchers. They are, first, the temporary nature of the powers being sought and, second, the fact that the Government say that there is no alternative to them.
I suggest to the Government, and particularly to their Back Benchers, that the temporary nature of the legislation is dubious. The temporary emergency legislation dealing with Northern Ireland has already been with us for 10 or 11 years. If we care about democracy, we should care very much about Acts of this type and even more about the frequency with which we have found it necessary to use them this century. For me, that is one of the most disturbing of factors.
The other reason why Conservative Back Benchers support the Bill is that they believe that there is no alternative. There is an alternative. A mere 18 months ago, during the election campaign, the Conservatives claimed to be the party of law and order. They produced a poster which stated that 1984 was only five years away. The present Home Secretary issued statements saying that he supported law and order. However, the Government are now not only instructing the judiciary but are taking powers to release people in what can only be described as an arbitrary fashion.
Although I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) that in most cases—perhaps all but one—the balance is on the side of the defendant, other aspects are particularly important. There are people now in prison who are expecting to be released under the Bill. Their families will be waiting for them to come home. If that happens, it will happen arbitrarily. There is no way of knowing who will be released and who will not. An additional feeling of gross injustice will be added to that which already exists in our prisons, among both prisoners and prison officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said that there is one advantage in that the Home Secretary has said that he is prepared to intervene over the judiciary where appropriate.
I come now to the alternative. I find it unusual to be a defender of the Prison Officers' Association. My relationship with it has been, to say the least, stormy. Nevertheless, I am pleased that it knows where I stand on matters of penal reform and that I know its views. On that basis we are developing a pretty good working relationship. The Government have been led astray, however, if they believe that the May report was the arbitration on this claim that it was described to be. Paragraph 9.10 on page 225 of the report states:
We have accordingly proceeded upon a strict basis of entitlement. In some cases we have felt there may be equitable grounds for creating such entitlements"—
that is a reference to certain allowances —
but in all except one of these cases we have taken the view that this must be left as a matter for future negotiation between the parties.
The report then goes on to deal with specific claims. Paragraph 9.29 deals with the so-called Liverpool claim, or claim 17. It states:
We made it clear that we could do so only if the claim, upon examination, was shown to involve issues of general principle and application, and that we were not prepared to set ourselves up as arbiters to make decisions upon any disputed issues applicable only to a single establishment.
The issue of single establishments is, as the Minister knows, claim 17.
No reasonable person could argue that the Prison Officers' Association does not have a point when it says that arbitration

has not fully taken place. Nobody, including the Prison Officers' Association, disputes that the process undertaken by the May committee was, to a considerable extent, arbitration. But the wording of those two paragraphs—and there are other similar paragraphs—indicates to any reasonable man that the Prison Officers' Association has a point. Weight is added to that point if we bear in mind that paragraph 9.28 points out the discrepancy between two officers serving side by side in different situations, with only one of them receiving an allowance. That is one of the anomalies. By settling claim 16, May created the anomaly referred to in claim 17.
In a letter to the Home Secretary today, I said that there is a way out of this position without draconian legislation. I have no doubt that if the relevant subcommittee—although it could be the full committee—was reconvened with instructions to examine the dispute about that claim and make recommendations—I put it no higher than that—prison officers would be strongly disposed to call off the action. That is the impression that I received having talked to prison officers outside the executive of the Prison Officers' Association. If that is the price that the Government are asking us to pay for their legislation, I am not prepared to pay it. The Bill is appalling in every respect. The alternative is clear. Given that it is not an immediate cash issue and that the Prison Officers' Association is prepared to move on the issue, I do not accept that we need such draconian legislation. Even now, it is not too late for the Home Secretary to reconsider the stance that he has taken.
I fear that there are two other reasons why we are discussing this legislation. This may be a dispute about who runs the prisons. If that underlies the legislation, there is no doubt about my position on that. I have always said that it is totally wrong for a local branch of the Prison Officers' Association to run a prison. I say that not because I am not in favour of greater industrial participation generally but because I recognise that if the custody of one group of people is given to another group there is no way in which the staff of an institution can have total control. That is unacceptable by any standards. If the Home Secretary believes that he must demonstrate that


he is running the prisons, he has missed a subtle change in the mood of the Prison Officers' Association. It has learnt a great deal from the past bitter few years. That is of extreme importance. Increasingly, prison officers have said to me that previous events in the prisons, including some of their actions, have not been in the best interests of themselves, the prisoners or society as a whole.
We are facing a crisis of morale. Only a few months ago, during the discussion of the May report, hon. Members praised prison officers. They said that they were marvellous people, working in horrible conditions and at times risking their lives. Suddenly, they are calling them callous and unreasonable. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) commented on the high salary of prison officers. I wonder whether his salary, as a lawyer, compares with that of prison officers, taking into account the conditions in which they have to work. On a number of occasions both inside and outside the House I have condemned those conditions. They bear repeating. There are three prisoners in a cell 12 ft. by 7 ft. with a chamber pot to be used by three men at night. Because men do not wish to stay in their cell with that smell, faeces are thrown out of the window. One could walk around any of our Victorian prisons and find that substance lying at our feet. Prisoners have to live in those conditions and prison officers have to work in them. It is wrong that hon. Members who such a short time ago praised the prison officers should now describe them as callous, unreasonable and being taken in by their leaders. It undermines the morale of a service that has already been seriously hit.
The declining morale of the service arises not because of money only. It is about the way that it has been ignored. A prison officer at Wormwood Scrubs said to me last week. "It is all very well to hear fine words from Members of Parliament and others, but when will we get some recognition of the job we are doing and some resources to do it well?" Hon. Members who have been so ready to criticise prison officers have forgotten that.
I shall continue to criticise the Prison Officers' Association—when I think that it is wrong—on the running of our

establishments and on the way that it has blocked certain reforms in the prison system. I say nothing about the justice of the original claim because I am not convinced of that. I am prepared to keep an open mind. But I have no doubt that the prison officers are perfectly reasonable and within their rights to ask for arbitration. If arbitration means reconvening a sub-committee of May or the May committee itself, that is not an unduly high price to pay to get rid of the Bill.
If the Government go ahead with the legislation, it will whittle away the foundations of democracy in Britain. For many years I have been taught that the House is here to protect our rights. I did not come here to encourage a process that whittles away those rights. When I look back over the history of this century and see how quickly and readily we turn to emergency legislation, I become disturbed.
I shall deal with individual clauses of the Bill in Committee. I am saying to Conservative Back Benchers that the Bill is an attack not only on the democratic rights of the House but on the democratic rights of the people of Britain. We shall go down this road with great danger and, ultimately, considerable sorrow.

Mr. David Crouch: The Guardian newspaper this morning described the events that have precipitated the debate and the Bill as an emergency. We all agree that only an emergency could bring such a Bill before us and cause us to consider so quickly the drastic draconian powers to be placed in the hands of the Home Secretary which will limit the freedoms available to persons on remand. There is an emergency, and we must consider the Bill. But I am not happy about the Bill.
Another emergency has been hinted at by other speakers in the debate. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) mentioned what might happen if we went into full-scale confrontation with the prison service. What will be the result of the feelings of bad will and the failure to maintain a better relationship with those who form such an essential part of the maintenance of law and order in Britain?
Something is wrong. Before we consider the Bill in detail in Committee, those thoughts must give us pause. I spoke in the debate on the May report on 1 August. The debate was considerably curtailed because we had to consider another measure before we could debate the report. We were delayed by at least an hour on the question of the selection of juries, if I remember correctly. But, be that as it may, we are now looking at a temporary Bill—at least, that is what I understand.
I have been dismayed at the observations of both Front Bench spokesmen. The Minister of State is an hon. and learned Member of this House and the Opposition spokesman is a right hon. Member and former Home Secretary. Their legal interpretation of the Bill was that it was not a temporary measure, although it is called a temporary measure. The House understands it to be a temporary measure, but it should be realised that in the small print—in clause 8—there is a let-out for the Bill possibly to become more than a temporary measure.

Mr. Joseph Dean: A few moments ago the hon. Gentleman referred to the May committee debate and the fact that it was held on a Friday and curtailed. I think that we are all trying to be objective in this debate. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should have given more and ample time to debate that report? I remind him that when this matter was raised at business questions both sides were almost given undertakings that the May report would be debated in full. I submit that the debate which took place on that Friday, and the time allowed, meant that the report was debated in part only, and an extremely small part at that.

Mr. Crouch: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although we are crying over spilt milk. However, at the time my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary told me personally that nothing dismayed him more than the fact that that important debate on that important report was curtailed. However, we are looking backwards and crying over spilt milk. We must now look forward. That is precisely what I want briefly to do.
What has gone wrong? What has precipitated this industrial action? Why do

the prison officers feel as they do? Why are they frustrated? Why do they feel neglected? Why is it that they even feel forgotten? Why should they now resort to such dangerous action? These are the very people who are most closely associated with the protection of society against danger, yet something has caused them to take the very action that we would never expect them to take. I wonder why.
I have met prison officers often and, like other hon. Members with prisons in their constituencies, I have been impressed with their dedication to their work and their concern for the inmates. They have complained to me often not just about their pay, conditions and allowances but also about the state of our prisons, the age of our prisons, the problem of three prisoners to a cell and all the degrading details about which we have heard today of what goes on in our prisons and is seen night and day by the prison officers. Yet they feel neglected. I do not think that it is merely a question of pay, conditions and meal breaks which has precipitated this disastrous emergency. Something much deeper exists.
The subject of prisons is not something that we look at too readily or too easily. A lot goes on behind those high walls that we do not fully appreciate or understand. Behind those high walls there are many things that we do not even want to understand or comprehend. It is much easier to comprehend what goes on in the fire service, the police service or the Armed Services. It is much more enjoyable for Members of Parliament to make a visit abroad or to go anywhere in this country to see the Royal Navy, the Air Force or the Army at work. It is easier to visit the police centre and see the computer activity of the police organisation today or to be shown how the police motor car service works and traces accidents and so on.
But how many people force themselves to find out what goes on in the prison service? From talking to the prison officers, I have discovered that they do not feel themselves to be in the same class as the police. For example, they have complained to me in respect of rent allowances. On 1 August I complained that May had not recommended an increase in their rent allowances. I criticised May for that failure. Why should a prison officer in my constituency get a rent


allowance of £11.30 a week whereas a police constable gets £18.30? That is not in the same class. There is no pay comparability in that. It does not take a great deal of wit or discernment to appreciate that things such as that, small as they may seem when we are confronted with industrial action, are the last straw on the camel's back.
Prison officers have also told me that they wanted the inconvenience locality allowance. May did not recommend that, and I was inclined to agree with May. I no longer thought that there was a case for the ILA, and I know that the Home Office felt the same, yet many prison officers still wanted it. Perhaps they wanted it only as a top-up to their total remuneration, and they feel that yet another allowance has been taken away from them.
I must confess that I do not understand the meal allowance and its complexity, but I can only assume that it is another straw on the back of the camel. I cannot believe that these men, who do a dangerous and depressing job, have now suddenly changed into monsters of industrial action. It is the duty of the Home Secretary, his Ministers and his officials to give the highest priority—and to regard it as the greatest challenge which faces him as Home Secretary—to finding out the real causes of the danger which has been precipitated.

Mr. John Ryman: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the fundamental cause of the prison officers' grievance which has precipitated this action, which I strongly condemn, is that the basic wage of the prison officer is so artificially low that, as Mr. Justice May recognised in his excellent report, there must be a huge amount of supplementary allowances of various kinds which would not be necessary if the prison officers received a decent basic wage?

Mr. Crouch: I agree, and I know for a fact that that has been one of the factors which has exacerbated the problem over the years. This is not a problem which has blown up in the lifetime of the present Home Secretary. It has been fermenting away for many years.
May reported that the remuneration of prison officers includes 37 per cent. for overtime—11 hours a week. That is an

anomaly which should not be allowed, be it in industry or in a service such as the prison service. It is then used in the wrong way. That is what prison officers have told me. Some of them arrange to work more overtime than others.
I have reported to the Home Secretary—I have written only this morning about the matter—I have had correspondence with the Howard League about it, and I mentioned in the debate on 1 August that some prisoners, who are very canny and aware of what they can do to hurt a prison officer, will lodge a complaint against a prison officer, who is then suspended while the complaint is investigated. Such an officer is suspended on basic pay, which is his remuneration less 37 per cent. A canny prisoner knows how to get his own back on a prison officer he does not like.
That was the question which I put to the Home Secretary yesterday. I said that I had not received an answer to that complaint which had been put to me by prison officers. As I also hinted yesterday, these are not major matters, but one by one they contribute to a feeling of dissatisfaction. I utterly condemn the danger that they have caused, the discomfort that they are causing to prisoners, the danger that they are causing to the public and the danger of precipitating the Bill. When I see us on the brink of so dangerous a measure, I am driven to ask whether there is something that the Government can do, having given this matter the highest priority and having said that it is the greatest challenge facing the Home Secretary.
Is there not something that can be done at the brink? In my view, when we reach this stage we should sit round a table. The Home Secretary says that he has been sitting round a table for many weeks with the prison officers and that he feels that his case is right and just. It probably is, but I cannot help thinking that perhaps he should hear not only the views of the leaders of the prison officers but the views of some of those prison officers who do not go the whole way with their leaders. Perhaps if some of their recommendations could be heard we would be making a step in the right direction and not a step over the brink.
It has been said that in some prisons it is the prison officers rather than the governors who rule. If that remarkable


statement is true, could it be true because in some prisons the prison officers are paid more than the governors? What a fantastic base on which to build good industrial relations and good management. I have been checking on the pay and conditions, and it is still true that certain grades of governors are paid considerably less than their prison officers. Today, for example, a prison officer receiving the award that was granted by the Home Secretary in May can receive up to £7,800 a year, whereas a principal prison officer can receive as much as £9,168 a year. Against those figures, an assistant governor, grade I, receives between £7,250 and £8,200 a year, and an assistant governor, grade II, receives between £5,700 and £6,850 a year.
Having come from an industrial background, and having been trained in industrial relations, when I read figures such as that I think that I am in cloud-cuckoo-land, and I cannot understand how we maintain good management. I have stood with prison governors who have said that officers are paid more than they are paid. They talk about it freely, and they laugh about it. A medium-grade officer will say that he will not apply for promotion because it does not pay him because at a higher grade he does not receive the overtime rates that add so much to his pay. I hope that that anomaly has now been corrected.
I have talked about the unfortunate history of this crisis. Much has been said about the May committee recommendations. On the question of organisation, it said:
Central administration ought to have shown itself more responsive to growing feelings of dissatisfaction with the organisation and management of the service as a whole, especially in the field of personnel management. The prison service should be reorganised with a view, first, to create within it a greater degree of unity and identity than presently exists; secondly to give the Prison Department more standing within the Home Office"—
for which I asked for an assurance yesterday—
thirdly, to identify those areas of its administration and work which should be the concern and responsibility of the most senior management.
There is an unfortunate history to this whole affair. It does not excuse the prison officers from taking industrial action, and I hope that at this eleventh

hour they will consider stopping it and making another plea to get round the table without preconditions. But it does not excuse the Home Office, for, as the employer, something has gone wrong there, not necesarily in the lifetime of the present Home Secretary but over a number of years.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Whenever Governments introduce offensive and blatantly anti-libertarian measures, they make the same excuse. They say that there is an emergency. Ministers say that they do not like the measure but that it is necessary because there is an emergency. It is remarkable how often the emergency is created, certainly in part, by the Government who are introducing the measure. I cannot believe that there is not a better way of dealing with this difficult dispute than introducing into the House in one day a measure that attacks the whole concept of the independence of the judiciary and the safeguards that anyone who appears before the courts has a right to expect.
I am not impressed with the argument that has been advanced. The Minister of State nodded when that argument was advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon)—that such executive powers to be exercised by the Home Secretary would be exercised for the benefit of the accused or a person held in custody. He is operating closed justice. There is no way in which the reasons why the Home Secretary will grant bail in one case and refuse it in another will be revealed to the public. By exercising such powers as he is given in the Bill, the Secretary of State will cause dissatisfaction and disgruntlement to a person who is refused bail and raise the expectations of those who hope that he will grant bail to them as a result of these emergency powers.
Another factor that all measures of this sort have in common is that the Minister always says that he hopes he will never have to use the powers and that he is introducing them as a long stop. However, when the powers are there it is remarkable how Home Secretaries and other Ministers find their use irresistible, whether or not they are necessary. That is why I find it remarkable that the Home Secretary should include the later clauses in the Bill, which


are unnecessary if we are facing simply a temporary emergency situation.
The reason why these draconian powers are being introduced is that the Government say that law and order have virtually broken down. The Government must accept some of the blame for that. It has not suddenly arisen. The dispute and the dissatisfaction in the prison service have been rumbling on year in and year out. If the dispute were settled tomorrow, the overcrowding and the basic difficulties would still be there. I have an awful feeling that if the dispute were settled tomorrow many hon. Members would breathe a sigh of relief and forget all about the difficulties in the prison service.
This debate can serve one useful purpose, at any rate: to alert the public to just how appalling conditions are and have been in our prisons. The test of whether this debate is worthwhile will come during the next general election campaign. I hope that I am not being unduly cynical, but I have a feeling that all the fine words said today and all the forebodings, warnings and anguish about what has happened will not surface very strongly in the manifestos of either of the major parties. I do not think that penal reform will figure very high in the next election campaign. In the intervening years, I do not think that many people will try to influence the public to the view that what we really need is shorter sentences and that it is not merely a question of harder and tougher regimes. Although that may be the most popular thing to advocate, it is not the truth.
There are measures in the Bill for which many of us have campaigned for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) was quite right. If it is possible for the Home Secretary, in an emergency, to waive certain matters and to accede to the fact that it is not necessary or good to send fine defaulters to prison, why, at the same time, can he not say "That is a measure which I should like to see enacted at some future time by the introduction of legislation"? It should be a long-term objective, and the Home Secretary should say that today. But he has said just the opposite.
This measure goes against the whole concept of the independence of the judiciary. It is in danger of creating a situation in which the Executive is in conflict with the courts. I do not know how well received was the letter that the Home Secretary sent to the courts. I suspect that it was not very well received—and quite rightly so. I think that the courts resented being told what to do. But this measure will not only cause the Executive to come into conflict with the courts. It will also create further conflict with the prison service and further dissatisfaction among those who are held in custody on remand and those who have been convicted.
I cannot understand why this dispute has not been settled. Surely it would be far better to send the whole matter to arbitration than to expect the House of Commons—which is envied throughout the world as the custodian of civil liberties—to pass in one day a measure which has not been considered. If a Government overseas were introducing a measure of this sort and if the justification for it were "We have been unable to settle a dispute over meal allowances", we in this House would laugh our heads off. If a Labour Government here introduced it, Conservative Members would be saying "It is the first step towards an East European Marxist State."
The Government should be ashamed of themselves for getting themselves in this mess. They have themselves to blame. I hope that this measure will be opposed vigorously tonight.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Like all hon. Members, I have the greatest distaste for emergency legislation. I agree with all those who say that those of us who are not members of the Executive have an overriding duty to look with very great care at this sort of legislation, which was certainly not envisaged when we fought the last general election campaign on the manifestos which our various parties put out.
Not for the first time, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) touched on what I think are the two main issues in this debate. On the first point, it seemed to me that he was saying that he felt that, if there was a


dispute between the prison officers and the Executive, the main cause of it was the employers' position. If I understand him aright on that point, I am bound to say that I disagree with him about it. It is because I disagree with him on that point that I find that, with considerable reluctance, I shall support the Executive on Second Reading—although not on later stages—because it seems to me that if one says that it is the Executive's fault one says "We must be in favour of some form of arbitration and possibly even some form of judicial arbitration."
I want to make plain that I am totally opposed to any sort of reference to arbitration. It seems to me that that would be going back to Clegg and perhaps back to one of the principal mistakes that the Tory Party made before the last general election.
It would be even worse if we went to any sort of judicial arbitration, because, as I hope I shall make plain in what I have to say on my second point, I believe most passionately in the independence of the judiciary from the activities of the Executive.
What is most unfortunate is the way in which successive Governments have called upon judges to head various forms of inquiry into quasi-political disputes, and this has involved the judiciary in political arguments that have arisen.

Mr. Soley: The hon. Member was present when I was speaking about May's comment on this matter. Surely he would accept that the quotations which I gave were an indication that to go down that road is merely to finish off the job that has already been started but not completed, and that it would be totally wrong to compare it with a new issue.

Mr. Budgen: The fact that some tentative steps have been taken down a road does not necessarily mean that everyone agrees that the traveller should go right down the road. It may be that Mr. Justice May took a few steps along that road. All that I am saying is that it is a very perilous road for a judge to travel.
Therefore, my general attitude towards the Bill is that I support it in so far as I regard the Government as asking for the necessary minimum powers to deal with this dispute. I do not wish to get involved in the minutiae of who is right

or who is wrong in this dispute. However, it seems that if one does not want arbitration, and, in particular, if one does not want judicial arbitration, the Executive must be armed with the powers that enable them to break the monopoly position of those who are providing services to them. In my judgment, the powers that are asked for under clause 1 are that necessary minimum.
But then I ask myself whether the powers that are asked for under the later clauses are necessary or whether they go far too far. I believe that the powers for which the Executive are asking the House of Commons under clauses 3, 4 and 5 go very much further than any House of Commons ought to grant. I quite understand the Home Secretary's position. No doubt, like all members of all Governments, he thinks "If in doubt, let us ask for too much." Surely the attitude of the House should be "If in doubt, give him too little." It seems that the powers that are requested in clauses 3, 4 and 5 are a major interference in the principle of the independence of the judiciary and of the administration of justice.
The right hon. Member for Down, South said that if we, the House of Commons, grant to the Government these powers we set a precedent. I agree with him. Subsequent speeches amply supported his observation. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) is active in debates of this sort. He is not in the Chamber now, but I understand that he has another engagement. I make no criticism of him for not being in his place. The hon Gentleman made it plain that he regarded this as a most useful precedent, as did the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyons), who, again, is active in debates of this nature. So that it is not thought to be merely a temporary aberration of the Left-wing of the Labour Party, may I say that the same view was expressed by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), the Liberal Party spokesman. It is regarded as a precedent.
Unfortunately, the tendency of the Executive to move a little closer to the distance that should be kept between the Executive and the judiciary has been an increasing and regrettable feature of my right hon. Friend's observations. Let us consider carefully what he said. We


have had his initial reactions to the May report. In suggesting to the judiciary that it should impose shorter sentences, he did not express that view directly from his own mouth. He used the words of the Lord Chief Justice to justify what he was saying. It is proper for the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice to make speeches about how the judiciary should act. However, I urge the House that it is not proper for the Home Secretary or any other member of the Executive to offer advice to the judiciary on how it should exercise its discretion in sentencing those who come before it.
It is unfortunate that the circular that the Home Secretary issued to the magistrates about a week ago fell into the same error. I suggest that my right hon. Friend's observations and the circular are more of a constitutional danger than legislation that interferes with the independence and discretion of the judiciary.
If we have a sovereign Parliament, that Parliament is entitled by law to interfere in the discretion and independence of the judiciary. I regret it, but it has that ultimate right. However, that is much more open and much less regrettable than the nudge and the wink and the advice that are given without the force of law and all that that implies. I regret the precedent that I fear is being set.

Mr. Ryman: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not so naive that he fails to realise that for years Home Secretaries have been issuing circulars to magistrates containing recommendations that magistrates throughout the country are free to act on or reject. This is not a novel concept.

Mr. Budgen: It is true that we do not have an American concept of total separation of powers. It is always a matter of judgment how far the Executive may go in offering advice to the judiciary. I am merely saying—I am trying to put this as neutrally as I can—that the combination of the Home Secretary's observations upon the May report, the circular to the magistrates and this most unfortunate Bill, when taken together, take my right hon. Friend over narrow dividing line.
It is because of that accumulation of evidence that I come to the conclusion that the proper course is not to follow the right hon. Member for Down, South in voting against the Bill on Second Reading. I shall vote for the Bill's Second Reading—I recommend this course to those of my hon. Friends who are disturbed about the principle of the Bill—because of my support for the breaking of the monopoly position of the prison officers. However, I shall vote against clauses 3, 4 and 5 and against the parts of clause 8 that allow the powers of clauses 3, 4 and 5 to be reactivated.

Mr. Robert Litherland: I have never been a chairman or a member of a prison visitors' committee or of any committee involved with the prison system or its reform. I am not a member of the legal profession. However, 12 months ago I inherited a major prison in my constituency in central Manchester. I was recently invited by the branch officers' association to visit the prison. I accepted the invitation and went with rather preconceived ideas derived mainly from the media and utterances from politicians. I had the impression that I would be meeting a demanding and rather impossible body of men. It was my third visit in 12 months. I went at the request of the association. I met the branch officers of the association at Strangeways, Manchester.
I found that the officers were not, as had been implied, acting in an irresponsible manner. The visit was enlightening. I met a responsible but determined group of men. They regard the situation as a proper legal industrial dispute with their employers. The difference is that they are in the public sector and, unlike other sectors of industry, have no access to arbitration. Therefore, they have to resort to a dispute to emphasise their claims. On the day that I met them, they had received a directive from their NEC to step up the dispute, and this they were reluctant to do. That was the reaction of a responsible group.
The officers claim, after two and a half years of talking, that they have played their part in being a moderate and responsible body. The present action is not the will of a few militants. It is the result of a unanimous decision of delegates


representing 127 branches of the association. It was a private ballot. There was a postal ballot for those who could not attend. They went about it in the recognised and accepted manner.
Strangeways is a transit prison. By its very nature it has a high turnover of prisoners. It relies on the good will of prison officers to make the system work. They make it work for the benefit of the prisoners. This particular prison has a certified normal accommodation level of about 1,021 prisoners. Prior to the dispute, it held 1,750 prisoners. The prisoners are of all varieties and come from the whole spectrum of the criminal world.
They include some of the less fortunate members of society, such as alcoholics, vagrants and others who require hospitalisation rather than imprisonment. A person who requires bathing and dressing needs more attention than a long-term, hardened criminal. However, officers have such duties.
Prison officers are required to take two meal breaks within three and a half hours of each other. Although it is undesirable and inconvenient, they do so in order that the system can continue to run smoothly and for the benefit of the prisoners. Prisoners from a transit prison, such as at Strangeways, Manchester, have to be escorted by prison officers to detention centres and to and from magistrates' courts. Such duties put stress on prison staff. Nevertheless, they are accepted. The prison officers made it clear that they did not want any dispute with the governor. They have a good relationship with the governor at Strangeways. They expressed respect for the governor. However, as a result of Government policy, a divide has arisen between the governor and the prison officers.
The prison officers emphasised that they did not want prisoners to suffer. They asked me to stress that point to the media. They said that the fault lay with the Home Office because it had adopted such an entrenched position. Prison officers are a determined body of men. They said that if, as a result of their actions, men were locked away for 24 hours a day, prisoners would be coming through the doors, walls and roofs.
Talk of troops being brought in to deal with prisoners who are normally dealt with by trained staff means that we are at

panic stations. The prison officers' only request is for arbitration. They will abide by such a decision. We have heard alarmist speeches about soldiers with bullets in their barrels and guns at the ready. It is almost as if we were declaring war. The issue concerns parity of payment for meal breaks, yet some hon. Members wish to go to such lengths. The dispute has arisen because complete ignorance as to how the system works has led to such theories being put forward.
Ignorance, combined with a Government who are prepared to go to such lengths to impose their policies on the public sector, is the real culprit. The Government have used the recommendations of the May Committee to arbitrate, although that was not the May committee's intention.
I received a letter from the Prison Officers' Association. It states:
By no stretch of any imagination can the May Committee report be regarded as arbitration. And the present state of affairs arose out of the pronouncements of May. Since May awarded payment for unscheduled meal breaks to those of our members who work the FGS system of attendance, but whose claim is identical to those of our members who work the Vee scheme system, and who were denied payment. In equity our claim for parity is just. Let the Home Office prove that their arguments are also just by going to arbitration. We will abide by the decision of an independent arbitrator.
The provocative action that has been taken will only entrench the position and destroy the governor's good will.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Most hon. Members will accept that urgent action is required to deal with an emergency. I believe that the great majority of hon. Members will support the Bill. However, as time goes on, as camps are established and as public concern grows about them, it may be thought that a sledgehammer has been taken to crack a nut. I do not think that that is so. Obviously, there are wider considerations. Nevertheless, we need an effective public relations operation in order to explain why such action is being taken and why this issue does not simply consist of a small wrangle about meal breaks.
Those of us who have some limited experience of labour relations are worried


because there appears to be no established procedure for dealing with grievances about wages and working conditions other than general inquiries such as that of May. It is also worrying that May referred to difficulties in dealing with such complaints. It is strange that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should imply that such things should be forgotten between one major inquiry and the next.
My main complaint and concern involve clause 5. It has been suggested that clauses 3, 4 and 5 are the same. They are not. Clause 4 is specific and is related to the duration of the strike. It states that during the dispute the Home Secretary will have the power to suggest to magistrates' courts that they should not send people to prison for certain crimes or offences. Such a provision is restricted to this dispute.
However, I am worried about clause 5, because it has wider implications. The Home Secretary will realise that most of us love, admire and respect him. We think he is a splendid chap. However, those of us who think so are worried about some of the things that the Home Office tries to do. For a long time, it has been clear that some of the so-called liberals, from whom we have heard, believe that it is possible to argue that those who have been sent to prison should be released earlier. There are arguments for and against that proposition. However, such a provision should be incorporated into a general Bill and not slipped into an emergency powers Bill.
Clause 5 gives the Government power to release prisoners six months earlier. The clause states that that is to be done
in order to make the best use of the places available for detention.
It cannot be argued that that clause is restricted to this dispute. We all know that prisons are desperately overcrowded. At present they are probably less overcrowded than they have been for some time, for the simple reason that 3,000 prisoners who would have been sent to prison have not gone there. The problem of overcrowding might be marginally less serious at present.
What is the object of clause 5? The problem in the prisons has not worsened as a result of the strike. I accept that there will be overcrowding in the

approved places. Nevertheless, the Government wish to reduce sentences by six months if there is overcrowding in order to make the best use of the places available for detention.
I do not know whether it was the result of the activities of a mole or whether all hon. Members received a news release, but I found in my box a splendid news release that was published yesterday by the Home Office. I do know where it came from, but it is entitled "Taking offenders out of circulation". It is the work of a Mr. Brody and a Mr. Tarling. They concluded that if people were let out earlier it would not lead to dramatic increases in the overall level of crime. That may or may not be the case. But it is pretty clear that their work is based mainly on those who get a larger proportion of parole—understandably those who are not the more worrying criminals. We have, in fact, a proposal to let prisoners out in substantial numbers up to six months early, irrespective of the circumstances. That is a pretty general move to deal with a general problem.
In order to make it quite clear that this is an emergency Bill to deal with an emergency situation, the Home Secretary should have the power only to release people early in order to deal with problems that arise directly out of this dispute. As far as I can see, clause 5 gives the Secretary of State the power during the period in which the Bill operates—that may be three months, but then, again, it may be extended to six months—to release prisoners up to six months early in order to make the best use of places available for detention and to deal with the problem of overcrowding. I must point out that that problem existed last week. It existed last month, and probably it will still exist next year. It would be quite wrong if the Home Secretary were to seek to bring in a measure to deal with this problem. which is controversial and wide-ranging, in the form of an emergency provisions Bill.
I have no objection to clause 4. It deals with people going to prison. We are having to set up camps and use partly completed prisons. Obviously, in order to deal with that emergency, we do not want to send quite so many people to prison. But clause 5 is totally different. In my view, it is a power to deal with a general problem which can be abused


and it would be wrong and rather shameful if it were slipped into a Bill which is meant to be a temporary measure to deal with a temporary problem.
The prison officers' dispute is far more significant and wide-ranging than a simple argument about meal breaks. I support the need for emergency action, but I hope that the Government will make it quite clear, perhaps by means of an amendment, that clause 5 can be used only to deal with problems arising out of the dispute and not with problems of general overcrowding. I hope that such an assurance can be given, otherwise this will cease to be a temporary provisions Bill and will be instead a Bill dealing with permanent problems. That is quite wrong for a temporary Bill.

Mr. John Ryman: Enough has already been said in the course of this valuable debate about the constitutional implications of the introduction of the Bill. I want to spend a few moments being realistic about the problems that have arisen in order to analyse what steps should and could be properly taken to resolve the deep-seated difficulties in the prison service.
No political party and no Government can claim much credit for their policies within the prison service in recent years. The House will remember that the establishment of the May committee in November 1978 arose against the background of serious industrial unrest in the prison service precipitated by wholly illegal and unauthorised actions by prison officers who saw fit to take the law into their own hands in deciding what prisoners should be received in prisons. That was a wholly unauthorised action which I strongly condemned, although I fully appreciated the grievances that those officers had at that time.
The history of the matter also indicated that the Prison Officers' Association had wrung certain concessions from the Labour Government and it thought that it could wring more by the actions it took in the summer and autumn of 1978. The then Home Secretary of the Labour Government, in the face of great resistance and pressure, reluctantly set up the May committee. When he spoke in the House at that time, he appeared to be extremely reluctant to establish the committee, but at the last moment

he thought that it would be the only way to avoid further serious industrial unrest.
The May committee reported in October 1979 and made certain basic recommendations, which highlighted the inadequacies of the pay structure of prison officers. The point is—I am surprised that it has not been grasped by many hon. Members in this debate—that the prison officers receive a wholly inadequate basic wage for doing a very unpleasant job, and the only way that they can supplement this inadequate basic wage is by using the various means of overtime payments and other allowances which bring it up to a reasonable living wage. Both this Government and the previous Government have known this for years.
In his recommendations, Mr. Justice May made it perfectly clear that the anomalous pay structure of prison officers had to be tackled by the Government and something had to be done to enable prison officers to have a reasonable basic wage, otherwise there would be vast abuse—as there undoubtedly is—of the various allowances that can be earned.
That is the background, and this Government must be realistic about it and appreciate that they are wholly to blame—as were the previous Government—in not recognising the basic grievance of the prison officers and doing something about it. But that is a matter of the past and it is not profitable for me to dwell on it. The question that arises now is what should be done in the present situation. The prison officers, having a perfectly legitimate grievance, are now taking the law into their own hands.
There are many prison officers who live and work in the North-East of England, and they are mostly decent, hardworking men and women who do a fine job in the public service. Yet some of them have now taken the law into their own hands in such a way that there appears to be a decision being made as to what prisoners should be received in certain prisons. As a result, hardship is being caused to the prisoners, substantial interference is occurring in the administration of justice and, just as the industrial action by magistrates' officials last year caused endless delay in future legal proceedings, so this prison officers' dispute will, six or nine months


after it has been solved, still have repercussions in delays in legal proceedings. People will be remanded longer and will have to wait longer for their trial or their committals for sentence.
That is the situation facing the Government. What can they do about it? It is no use well-intentioned and well-meaning people saying "Let the prisoners out", "Send fewer people to prison" and so on. Advice on penal policy is valuable and receives a great deal of notice when it comes from people with experience in these matters who know the facts of a particular case and the antecedents of a particular defendant and are able to express views about it. But it is no use suggesting that fewer people should go to prison because we have not got prisons, or saying that people should come out of prison because there is no room for them inside.
The Government are faced with a situation of their own making, and they must deal with it. What they are doing by the Bill, which is constitutionally quite outrageous, is seeking to settle an industrial dispute by imposing, through executive action by the Home Secretary, an edict to the judiciary, ordering it to achieve a reduction in the prison population indirectly at a time when the Government say, in effect, that they will not do so directly. That is what the Bill is about. It is a constitutional outrage. It is an attempted interference by the Executive with the powers of the judiciary.
In Committee, we shall have further opportunity to point out to the Home Secretary and his Ministers the difficulties that could occur if the Bill is enacted in its present form. The Opposition should be constructive and tell the Government what our attitude is to the dispute and how it should be resolved. I hope that Front Bench spokesmen will do so.
The Government have a great weakness to overcome. The dispute has been caused by their refusal to go to arbitration over the meals issue. The Home Secretary argues that there has already been arbitration in the form of the May committee, That is not strictly accurate. The May committee was not asked specifically to look at the problem that

is causing the dispute. I recognise the Government's difficulties, but I ask them to reconsider their refusal to go to arbitration. Why do they refuse?
I condemn the prison officers' unlawful action, although I can see why they are taking such action. Do not the Government recognise that the May committee did not have to deal with this point? It is no answer to say that there has already been arbitration. That is the crux of the problem. The Government should seriously consider that point. It is a small concession to make in the interest of solving the problem. Decent, hardworking men and women in the prison service would then cease their industrial action. We have not heard one sensible reason for refusing arbitration.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The debate has covered the merits of the dispute, the Government's response and proposals, the procedures that the House has been involved in as a result and the merits of the Bill.
Ample evidence has been produced to show that the merits of the dispute are evenly balanced, to say the least. One would therfore not have expected the Government to take such draconian measures and introduce the Bill. The Government are using the matter as an example. From our knowledge of the May report, it is clear that the Government could have found their way to arbitration if they were concerned only with this dispute. They want to make an example in the public sector to demonstrate that the Government will take firm, dramatic action to make it difficult for people to get pay rises. They are using this dispute in a wider context. That is regrettable.
The Government's action is generally regrettable. By waving a big stick and making use of Parliament to do so they again devalue democracy. They want to steamroller legislation through the House without proper discussion.
The Government have not sufficiently considered what will happen if the prison officers do not give way. What will happen if the prison officers escalate or extend the dispute, or if it continues on its present level for many months? How


will the Government get themselves out of the difficulties that will then arise?
The procedure involved is one of the worst abuses of the House. Emergency measures negate democracy. They stop public debate of measures before they are enacted. Public debate is an essential element of democracy. People should have the opportunity to make representations, and Members of Parliament should have the opportunity to take note of them. In this measure, that opportunity is virtually denied. It may be possible to read a leader in The Times and consult one or two pressure groups, but there is no opportunity for genuine public debate. Worse than that, there is no opportunity for Ministers to listen to representations.
Discussions are taking place in the building and changes in the Bill may occur. Legislation should not be put together as a result of horse trading behind Mr. Speaker's Chair or elsewhere. That is no way for Parliament to operate, but that is being forced on us.
The Home Secretary more or less suggested that questions would not be answered until the winding-up speech. If we get assurances then to allay the fears that we have voiced, we shall not need to table amendments. However, if we do not, we shall have to table instant amendments. The officials of the House will then be in a difficult position in trying to work out a logical selection. They cannot produce a proper selection in the few minutes between the conclusion of Second Reading and the start of Committee. It makes our procedures a farce.
Turning to the Bill, I should like assurances about the number of approved places that will be set up. What will happen to those approved places when the dispute ends? Is there any guarantee that they will disappear straight away? We all know of temporary measures that have become permanent. Prefabricated houses were supposed to have a 10-year life, but 30 years later many are still in existence. It was not intended that prisoners should continue to live three in a cell. It was a temporary measure to overcome a temporary problem.
After we have found approved places and filled them, will they continue in use? Prison officers may black those institutions. There is a grave danger that the temporary use of Army camps and other premises will become permanent.

We are all agreed that the prison population has become far too large. It is important that the temporary approved places do not become permanent.
What provision is there for checking the standards in the approved places? They may have to last for three or four months. Will the Government make provision for outsiders to check them? What is to happen about prison uniform? Prisoners on remand are entitled to wear their own clothes, but some prisoners whe are sent to approved places will have been convicted and would normally have to wear prison uniform. The uniform will not be available in approved places. I hope that the Minister of State will confirm that he intends to extend to prisons in Great Britain the provision announced for Northern Ireland that convicted prisoners will no longer be required to wear prison uniform and will be entitled to wear their own clothes.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The announcement was that they will be required to wear civilian-type clothing, but not their own clothing.

Mr. Bennett: I had misunderstood that, but we still want to know what clothing they will be required to wear in an approved place.
I hope that the Minister of State will assure us that modifications required to the Prison Act 1952 will be published. That is an important matter. What procedure will be introduced for complaints about the way in which prisoners have been treated in approved places? Will they be subject to the normal complaints procedure for prisoners, or will there be another procedure? It is important that the right of a prisoner to complain about his treatment is safeguarded.
On the remand provisions, it is fundamental that a prisoner should have the right to go back before the magistrates' court and should not be able to be fobbed off by being told that he has the right to be represented by a solicitor. Some of my constituents have complained that solicitors have let them down at the last minute and have not appeared. Unless prisoners are guaranteed the right to be at the magistrates' court, they cannot be sure that a plea for bail or for a change in the conditions attached to the granting


of bail will be made. In addition, they will not have the important traditional right of being brought before the court so that magistrates can see that they are in good health and are not suffering unduly in the place where they are being held. It is important that the Government make clear that a prisoner will have the right to go back to a magistrates' court if he wishes and that the right will be waived only if he agrees.
It ought also to be possible to ensure that magistrates have the right to visit any of the approved places, in order to ensure that prisoners' health and safety are being safeguarded.
Clause 3(2) states:
A person released under this section may be required by the Secretary of State to comply with such requirements as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
That is a blank cheque. The Secretary of State ought to be prepared to lay those requirements before us, at least as a statutory instrument subject to approval by the House. He should not expect there to be total agreement for him to set out any requirements that he thinks fit.
In clause 3(6) there is a danger of conflict arising between the powers of the Home Secretary to say that a person can be released on bail and the power of a constable to rearrest that person. I hope that in Committee we shall be assured that a person will not be released by one authority and arrested by another. We do not want such a cat-and-mouse procedure.
Clause 6 seems to be permanent legislation and it is disgraceful that it should be included in a Bill which is said to be a temporary measure. If the Government feel that it is important to clear up the position of a constable in holding a prisoner rather than taking him straight to a prison or detention centre, that should be put into permanent legislation and made subject to the full scrutiny and proper procedures of the House. It should not be tagged on to this Bill.
We need a clear answer on whether the provision to extend the powers in the Bill by a statutory instrument will enable the measure to be re-enacted in future years or whether it will expire once it has lapsed.
We also need to know whether it is intended that the Bill shall extend merely to England and Wales or whether, in view of the decision of the POA to extend the dispute to Northern Ireland, the Home Secretary will be bringing forward an order to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland. That would be particularly unfair to those in that part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stan Thorne: It is strange that we should be debating such a serious measure when there are only nine hon. Members in the Chamber. There are two Members on the Government Front Bench but no Conservative Back Bencher is present. I do not know whether that indicates that they wish to have no part of the Bill and will march through the Lobby in accordance with the diktat of the Prime Minister. That would be an abrogration of their responsibilities to their constituents and to the prison officers in their constituencies. However, that is a matter for those hon. Members. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) described himself as a spokesman for the Police Federation—I do not know whether that is a paid appointment—and said that the job of a prison officer was dangerous and highly demanding. Indeed, he eulogised about the sort of people who carry out such work. I subscribe to his view of the difficulties experienced by prison officers.
There is a prison in my constituency. In passing, I hope that the Home Office will soon purchase that prison from the local authority in order to assist the borough council to solve some of its financial problems. The Prison Officers' Association has a legitimate claim. We are faced with what would be regarded in the private sector as a typical industrial relations problem.
I get the impression that the Bill has been lying on the shelf in the Home Office for some time—perhaps two or three years. Perhaps the Shadow Home Secretary is not unfamiliar with it. Perhaps he had knowledge of it during the period of the previous Government. I am not sure whether that has been clarifield during the debate. It would be interesting to know when the Bill was concocted. Perhaps the Minister of State will tell us when he replies.
The Bill is consistent with the Government's attitude to trade unions. This Government have illustrated over a very short period since they took office that they prefer conflict in our society. Every decision that they have made in the economic, social and industrial fields has created a measure of conflict. We now have on the statute book the Employment Act. That is a recipe for conflict. It will not be too long before we see some conflict, if we have not already seen it in the picketing in one or two recent disputes.
The Bill is consistent with the class interests of those whom the Conservatives represent. That is why I do not wish to adopt the arguments advanced by some of my hon. Friends about the judiciary and the Executive, about one robbing the other of certain rights, powers or privileges, because, as I see it, both the Executive and the judiciary are part of the State apparatus, and if they are quarrelling about how they operate as instruments of coercion I do not want to get involved in that argument.
The State apparatus exists to protect the interests of one class against the other, one class that is the exploiter and the other that is the exploited. That is the position in which the prison officers find themselves.
It is regrettable that during the discussions in Poland about the establishment of independent trade unions we heard from Conservative hon. Members several statements about the rights that should be protected in Poland, where there was a demand for free, independent trade unions. I mention that merely to say that I deplore the use of the State machine—in this case the Army and whatever other instruments the Home Secretary may consider using under the Bill—whether in Poland or in the United Kingdom. Clearly, that State apparatus is used merely by one class to exploit another.
My speech has been deliberately brief, because I do not want to argue about the technicalities of the Bill. I am prepared to leave that to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and other hon. Members. There are niceties of argument to be advanced about the wording of the Bill, but in my view the Bill serves one purpose, and one purpose only. The architect could have been the Secretary

of State for Industry, the Home Secretary or the right hon. Member for Down, South. The product would have been the same.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Surely the hon. Gentleman will not conclude his speech without explaining which class is exploiting which in Poland.

Mr. Thorne: I am sorry to learn that it is necessary for me, a man with very little education, to explain that to a man of the gargantuan intellect of the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, I recognise that his education was obtained in a vastly different set of schools from those where I obtained mine, so I shall do him the courtesy of explaining.
The class that is doing the exploiting in our society is the class that owns and controls the means of production, distribution and exchange, the class on whose behalf Conservative Members operate. The exploited class consists of those, whether they are draughtsmen, prison officers, labourers, coal miners or whatever, who have only their labour power, which they sell to the other class in the process of production, distribution and exchange.
I hope that in due course the right hon. Gentleman will pay tribute for that lucid explanation. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Poland?"] I speak only briefly, because I see the subject as being a pure class matter. Any Opposition Member—whether the Shadow Home Secretary or anybody else—who wishes to support the Bill is, in my view, acting contrary to the class interests of those whom he is supposed to be serving in this House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: This is one of those Bills for which the Government cannot conceivably claim they were given a mandate at the last election. They presumably did not explain to the electorate that they would trample on the rights of Parliament by pushing through legislation at the drop of a hat in order to solve their industrial relations problems. That is what the Bill boils down to.
One of the interesting things about the Home Office is that there appears to be a fair measure of consensus between the Front Benches on this legislation. Some


of us have demonstrated today that we have serious reservations about this method of solving an industrial relations problem. At the end of the day, the prison officers and the Government will have to sit round a table and discuss a settlement.
Nobody supposes that prison officers have a particularly good job. The prisons are a deterrent. The difficulty of working in a prison is that one must face, at least in part, some of the measures and hardships that are imposed on the prisoners to serve as a deterrent to a repetition of the crime for which they are in prison. Therefore, it is not a particularly happy job.
When an offer of arbitration is held out, the Government are being unreasonably obdurate in refusing to go to arbitration. I know that a great deal has been said about the May report and whether the issue of meal breaks was or was not covered. If the Government believe that they have such a strong case, why do they not go to arbitration, in the certain knowledge that they will win? If their case is so cast-iron, why can it not stand up to examination by a third party not involved in the dispute?
Is it that the Government feel that there is a scintilla of doubt? Are there a few reservations somewhere in the bureaucratic Whitehall mind that passes for intellect in the operation of the inner Government? Is there a feeling that they may not win and that if, having reserved their position and reached the stage of confrontation, the Government then lose they will look crestfallen and foolish?
Taking the Government case at face value, everything that they have said points to the strength of their case. I would have thought that the strength of their case would stand up to arbitration. For the Government not to go to arbitration is for the Government, not the prison officers, to push this situation deliberately towards the point of confrontation. It takes two to make a quarrel. In all the platitudes poured out by the Government about how much they regret the position and how wrong the prison officers are, they seem to forget that they also have a part to play. By the simple solution of putting the case to arbitration, the work-to-rule

that the prison officers have undertaken could be stopped.
I want to add a few comments about the powers and nature of this legislation. These are draconian powers. It is interesting that an extreme Right-wing Government such as that now in office should push through this legislation to solve an industrial relations confrontation by means of granting the Home Secretary free and unfettered powers to make a prison anywhere. There have been other illustrations. Chile is an example. Similar powers were used. It is possible that a football stadium, a school, a house and, in fact, anywhere can be designated a prison.
Maybe the Establishment is working a little more widely. I tabled an amendment last night. I realise that it was only a formulation, because until the Bill is presented no amendments can be tabled. It was not presented until 3.35 pm, but I gather, from a brief examination, that my amendment is not to be called.
My amendment was intended to put some power into Parliament. The Establishment does not want that. The Establishment is not confined to the Front Bench of the Tory Party. It runs a good deal wider. It seems that there has been no selection—although I hope I am wrong—of an amendment containing a requirement to lay an order before the Home Secretary can start splaying out his decisions to make prisons here, there and everywhere. This is one of the most draconian powers that Parliament has ever been asked to pass. We are told that it is temporary and that it is to last only a few months. The temporary provisions legislation for Northern Ireland comes up every six months. A Government spokesman says that things have not quite settled down and that, although we are winning the battle against the terrorists, we need to keep these powers a little longer. So it goes on, year after year.
Again, the consensus is revealed. There is no difference between the policies that is immediately detectable to the outsider. So the temporary legislation becomes permanent. We know what is meant by the assurance that it is temporary and will have to be renewed by order. We know what is meant by the assurance that the matter has to come before the House. It


means that a three-line Whip is shoved out. We know that all the hacks on the Conservative Benches will troop into the Lobby to vote for it at whatever time it is put before the House.
My right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will bear testament to the fact that when the Labour Party was in power it was a lively period and there was no guarantee, as exists at the moment, that everyone would troop through the Lobby. At least, we exercised a certain amount of scrutiny every now and again. That is not the situation with the Conservatives. One has only to look at the difference between the party conferences. Whatever view one takes of the Labour Party conference, it was a lively occasion. It was better than the gathering of Daleks, carefully cleansed and vetted to make sure that they did not have a naughty idea between them that was out of line with Conservative policy.
We know, therefore, what "temporary" means. It means that at any time the Government choose the Home Secretary can can tell the Whips to get out the "three-liners" and he will get through the measure and extend it for a further three months. That is not very reassuring when we consider the extensive powers of the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) made some important points about those extensive powers.
I should like to examine some of the details of the Bill—for example, the power of the Secretary of State to release people from prison under the part of the Bill which states:
A person released under this section may be required by the Secretary of State to comply with such requirements as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
Why is there not a schedule to the Bill? Why is this matter not covered by regulations so that the scrutiny that exists in Parliament, which, I recognise, is not much, can be exercised by those who were elected to this place, supposedly to exercise such scrutiny? Nowhere is the notice prescribed? Why cannot there be prescribed a piece of paper under which a person is released? A person on release could be placed in a difficult situation. He would be open to blackmail. The power of a constable is enormous. A constable can arrest a person who has been released from custody

if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that that person is not likely to surrender himself … or if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that that person is likely to fail to comply with any requirement imposed on him under subsection (2)".
That allows the Secretary of State to impose such requirements as he thinks fit. These are enormous and widespread powers. One of the safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention is that bit of paper. However, that piece of paper is not prescribed in a proper form. Will the governor simply provide the paper or will the deputy governor do it? Will there be a record in the prison? Will there be a duplicate anywhere?
We are talking about a person's liberty and the right of the police to challenge that liberty in certain circumstances which are ill-defined. We must have safeguards so that the police do not make an error and place a person's liberty in jeopardy when that person has a right to be at liberty. That is another part of the legislation which deserves criticism. The provision should be subject to control by Parliament. That is what we are supposed to be good at. We deal with orders on the Floor of the House. With orders under the negative procedure, at least the Government have to put measures before Parliament. Once again, the Executive has decreed that it will have the legislation and Parliament is to be pushed to one side.
Sometimes it is suggested that legislation can be passed rapidly. We are talking not of legislation which is plucked out of a hat to deal with the Government's incompetent handling of industrial relations but of proposals placed before the people at an election. During election campaigns the Conservatives say that rapid legislation is not possible and that it takes months of careful consideration. We shall take a leaf out of the Tory book. We shall remember this when it comes to the next election. We want some rapid legislation. When the Tories talk about the need for consideration, we shall remind them that they introduced a Bill the day before the Second Reading and remaining stages were taken. We shall remind them how they shoved it all through.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cryer: No, not at the moment. My hon. Friends have said that they want to go to Durham and Scotland to consult prison officers. They want to go round the United Kingdom—apart from Northern Ireland, which is not covered by the Bill—in order to consult, but they cannot do that.
I can think of some legislation that should be passed rapidly. We would have only to go down the corridor to consult before we introduced legislation to abolish the House of Lords. We shall bear in mind what the Tories have done. It might take us weeks rather than months, but that will be many more hours than the Conservative Government are prepared to give Parliament to consider this reactionary legislation.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I shall sneak briefly because I am not an expert on the subject. However, I am a libertarian and have struggled in many Committees on such issues. I want to place on record my opposition to this draconian measure, as I have on kindred measures.
Whatever is happening in the prison system is the responsibility of successive Governments, including Labour Governments. I denounce the collusion between the two Front Benches on such issues. There was no consultation with any of us. None of us knew what the Shadow Home Secretary was to say yesterday, and many of us did not agree with what he said. I want to place that on the record. We want to be consulted, and some of us are having a long struggle in the background to try to secure that there is some consultation.
The prison system is a disgrace to mankind. It is archaic, it is Victorian and it is utterly disgraceful. Almost nobody does anything about it until we are suddenly assailed. I am sad that the Labour Party has allowed the situation to continue. We expect such behaviour from the Conservative Party. Its members do only what they must do. When they are in the terrible political mess that they are now in, they have to bribe the police and the Army because they expect trouble. This is one of the symptoms of the trouble which is now arising in the prison system. Terrible riots have taken place in many gaols, the most frightful having happened in Hull. It

was perfectly obvious to many of us after what happened at Winson Green some years ago to those convicted after the bombings that there was something sick and wrong with the prison system. It is time that the European Court of Human Rights knew something about the position so that it could intervene.
We often hear the argument that, compared with those of other countries, our prisons are good, but we should compare ourselves with what should be, not with what happens in many tyrannical countries, and we should see that things are now going massively wrong. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who represents the Police Federation, intervened in the Home Secretary's speech to say that he could convey to the right hon. Gentleman individual cases which were an utter disgrace. Of course, we all could. When two, three and four people are put in cells that are made for one person, when they have to slop out and go to the lavatory in front of one another, and when they are locked in their cells for 23 hours a day, as happens in many cases, surely, in common humanity, some of the money that has been expended on useless armaments should be used to improve the prison system and build better prisons.
The circumstances with which this Bill seeks to deal arise from the disgraceful prison system. Some prisons are universities of crime. Those who go into them are not reformed but leave them bitter and disillusioned about an establishment that is a bigger criminal than most of them.
In view of the pressure on prisoners and prison officers generally, it is staggering that this crisis has not come to a head long before now. I remember the trouble that we teachers had when we fought for meal breaks, when we fought for the right for teachers to leave the schools and have a break from the children at lunchtime so as to make them better teachers in the afternoons. We had a tremendous struggle but eventually we won. Prison officers are in prisons all day and are in constant contact with the prisoners in conditions that we have imposed upon them. If they want to break, we should support them. We are in a mess now because we refused to listen to them in the past, just


as we refused to listen to the prisoners who have complained bitterly about their lot.
The Bill reminds me of the temporary emergency provisions legislation for Northern Ireland. Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State power to approve any place as a temporary place of detention. Clause 2 extends the powers of a magistrates' court to remand a person in custody in his absence. Clause 3 confers a discretion on the Secretary of State. Each clause heaps up the draconian powers, and our Front Bench is colluding with the Government Front Bench to impose these powers on an already grossly overloaded prison system.
Some of us will vote against the Bill, just as we have voted against other similar legislation. Emergency legislation is always needed because the system with which it deals has fallen down and has failed to fulfil its task in previous years. I therefore hope that more people will take note of what is happening and that both Front Benches will get together to alter the prison system and provide better prisons containing fewer prisoners under a better political system. I hope that by spending more money on the prison system we shall avoid coming to the impasse at which we have arrived today.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: As a result of the action of the Prison Officers' Association, the Government face an enormous problem. That problem would face a Government of any colour when devising a system to meet the complications caused by the action of the Prison Officers' Association.
The main worry about the Bill is that every part of it reeks with Executive discretion, and many parts are an affront to civil liberties. In a few brief remarks, I shall illustrate the parts of the Bill that concern me. Clause 2 gives discretion to the Executive to provide that those who have been remanded in custody can be remanded in their absence without appearing before a magistrates' court. It provides that when a person has been remanded in custody by a magistrates' court
he shall not be brought before a magistrates' court at the end of the period of remand unless the remanding court has given a direction requiring him to be brought before such a court.

There is a similar provision in subsection (2):
Subsection (1) shall have effect notwithstanding any other enactment or any rule of law but shall not affect any power of a magistrates' court to require a person remanded in custody to be brought before it".
What would happen if a magistrates' court sought to give such a direction but the direction was incapable of fulfilment because the prison officers would not comply with it? What sanction would be available if the prison officers defied such a direction?
The prime concern about the hastily drafted Bill with relation to civil liberties is the danger that certain prisoners on remand effectively may be forgotten during the period of remand because they will not be brought before a magistrates' court. There will not be the check on their health and well-being that is possible as a result of regular appearances before a magistrates' court. Although they may be legally represented, because of the prison officers' action the lawyer may not have proper access to his client.
Because of the real dangers to civil liberty in the clause, are the Government prepared to agree that continued remand in custody without appearing before the magistrates' court will be possible only if the prisoner has access to a lawyer who is able to give the magistrates' court any fresh information that may be available to support an application for bail? There is a danger that, week after week, a person could be effectively forgotten by the system. Do the Government accept that that is a real problem? If so, and if they do not see fit to approve that sort of formula, what other formula do they have in mind to meet the problem?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: One solution to the problem—and I agree there is a problem—would be to build into clause 2 a requirement that the offenders should be brought before the court at least once every 21 or 28 days.

Mr. Anderson: I am prepared to consider any formula on its merits. That may be a partial solution. A better solution would be a provision that a person may have access to a lawyer if he so wishes. The lawyer could then bring up-to-date information to the magistrates' court. If the Government agree that the period should be not more than


21 days, that would be better than the open-ended possibility under the current system.
But, again, one faces the problem to which I alluded earlier. What happens if as a part of this industrial dispute the prison officers deny individual prisoners in custody access to their lawyers, as I understand is currently happening in certain parts of the country? Given that, clearly I have no solution. What will be the sanction if a magistrates' court makes a direction which, as part of the industrial dispute, the prison officers will not accept?
I should like to refer to several other points of detail. We are told in clause 3(1) that
the Secretary of State may direct
that a person may be released
but the Secretary of State shall not give a direction under this subsection unless he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to make the best use of the places available for detention.
Again, that reeks of Executive discretion. What criteria will the Secretary of State adopt in seeking to consider whether it is
the best use of the places available"?
Surely, the Government should spell out rather more clearly what they have in mind.
A similar phrase appears in the following subsection, which states:
A person released under this section may be required by the Secretary of State to comply with such requirements as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
Surely, Parliament has a duty to probe and to ask for greater detail when phrases such as
as the Secretary of State thinks fit
appear at such frequent intervals in Bills of this nature, which have been put together so hastily in this emergency situation. The precedent of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act is hardly a happy one for such hastily drafted legislation. Therefore, it would be proper for the Government to give some indication of what they have in mind.
These are just a few random thoughts, but we need much clearer answers than we have had so far from the Government

before they can expect Parliament properly to discharge its duties in respect of the Bill, which essentially is such an affront to civil liberties.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should briefly like to support one of the points made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). He criticised clause 2, and he was right to do so, because it is quite clear that under that clause an offender can be kept in custody for a long time without his being brought before the courts. For reasons that I may have an opportunity to deal with when the matter goes into Committee, I regard that as unsatisfactory.
That being so, it is highly desirable that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should give some consideration to limiting the time during which an offender can be held in custody without making an appearance before the courts. Therefore, I commend to him the suggestion that I put to the hon. Gentleman in an intervention, namely, that we should build into clause 2 a specific requirement that the offender shall appear before the courts at least once in 21 or 28 days. If I have the opportunity at a later stage, I shall move an amendment to that effect, and I hope that it will commend itself to the Committee.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) for the suggestion which he has made, which I am sure will find support on both sides of the House. But the interchange between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) illustrates one of the difficulties with which we are faced as a result of the rush procedure that we are suffering in respect of the Bill.
As I understand it, no amendments, even worthy ones such as those that have been discussed between my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman, can be officially tabled, and certainly none can be circulated and studied, until after we have completed our proceedings on Second Reading. We may complete the proceedings on Second Reading in an hour or so. That will be followed by a vote, and the motion in respect of Second Reading may be carried. Quickly after that, we


shall go into Committee and the Chairman will call amendment No. 1, which probably very few hon. Members other than the hon. Member who is submitting it will have seen. Certainly no hon. Member will have been able to compare amendments Nos. 2 to 7 with amendment No. 1. We shall be in great difficulty. We should have some time between the conclusion of proceedings on Second Reading and the commencement of the Committee stage—if only one or two hours—in order to draft and circulate amendments and in order to enable hon. Members to consult on the amendments.
I hope it will be possible for that to be considered later. It would be a travesty of our proceedings if we began the Committee stage of the Bill almost immediately after the vote on Second Reading and have to consider amendments that cannot be made or circulated until that time. In such circumstances, no hon. Member will be able to claim that he has given serious attention to the amendments being put forward in Committee. It will make a mockery of the proceedings of the House, and we shall be engaging in a charade if we try to go through a Committee stage on that basis.
I understand why the Government want this Bill to be enacted quickly. There are, of course, precedents for carrying through a Bill in all its stages in a single or extended day in the House. I am not making a special point about that, but if we have to do so let us do so honestly, and we are not doing so honestly if we precipitate ourselves into a Committee stage without an amendment paper at 10.30 pm or 11 pm. We shall be passing pieces of paper amongst ourselves and hon. Members will have to note down what is said. We shall have to consider each amendment without taking into account its effect on other amendments and on the Bill.
I have not been in the Chamber for a large part of the debate and I had no intention of speaking, except to raise that point. But, since I had the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make two or three further points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred to the deterioration in our prisons,

and he rightly blamed Governments of both parties for the progressive deterioration over many years. Whenever we talk about this matter, there are always some people, including some leader writers in the yellower ends of the yellow press, who ask why these do-gooders want to make life easier for "convicts". I remind the House that the deterioration of our prisons involves not only a deterioration in the conditions and living standards of the prisoners but an equal deterioration in the conditions and living standards of prison officers. I suspect that one of the reasons why prison officers have developed a shorter and shorter fuse over the last few years is that they are suffering the natural results of environmental frustration. They are suffering from the effects of living and working in a horrible environment. Of course, that has an effect upon them. It is not only the convicts but the prison officers who suffer from the progressive deprivation of resources from the prison service.
This House—and I do not mean only the present Government; I mean all Governments and all Back Benchers, because we are all equally responsible—has permitted a situation in which a very substantial increase in the number of the inmates in our prisons was not in the least matched, for whatever reasons—we know all the reasons; some of them are horrible reasons—by an increase in resources devoted to the prison service in order to maintain existing standards, let alone to improve them.
I have been down a coal mine three or four times. Whenever I have heard of miners putting in a wage claim, I have always said that I would want £200 a week to go down a mine—without doing any work at all. In the last year or two, for one reason or another, I have had occasion to visit a number of prisons. Whenever I hear of prison officers making a wage claim, I say that I would want £200 a week to go into the joint, before I did my first stroke of work.
I am not at all puzzled by the prison officers becoming militant in this claim. I say at once that I have not attempted to follow or study this particular claim about meal break allowances. I have not the least clue as to how well justified it is. They say that the claim is justified; the Government say that it is not; and so on.
But what I have in mind is the number of times that occupants of the Treasury Front Bench have lectured trade unions when they have refused to take a claim to arbitration. Over and over again, whenever there is a dispute and the trade union, for whatever reason, good or bad, has refused to take a claim to arbitration, the occupants of that Front Bench have said "Whatever the merits, there can be no excuse for not submitting a dispute to arbitration." Oh, the lovely curtain lectures that Ministers used to read to trade union leaders! "Arbitration is the civilised way to solve everything," they said.
I repeat that I have not the least clue as to how far, if at all, this particular claim is valid, but I want someone on the Government Benches to tell me what is the case against submitting it to arbitration. As has been said, if the Government are sure—they say that they are—that their case is watertight, what on earth have they to lose? They must be sure that the arbiter will find in their favour and that they will be in the happy position of maintaining their present stance, reinforced by the authority of an independent opinion supporting that stance. Therefore, what have they to lose?
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have described this legislation as draconian. That is not an exaggerated term. It is legislation which puts unprecedented power into the hands of a Minister, away from the courts, to do things which hitherto could be done only by a court of law, with all the safeguards that a court of law provides for the citizen.
That is what the Bill does. It makes the Minister judge and jury, with no opportunity for the defence to be heard. When the Russians, the Indonesians or the Chileans do it, we are all horrified and we all protest. However, the Secretary of State is taking the same powers that produced the Gulag archipelago. They are exactly the same powers; because the Gulag archipelago arises when the functions of the courts are transferred to a Minister and when we blur the distinction between the Executive and the judiciary.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill, he will note that the

only major powers are those that enable the Secretary of State to order the early release of an offender and enable the courts in certain circumstances not to have early remands. Those powers are in no sense comparable with the abuses to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in other countries.

Mr. Mikardo: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I appreciate that not for the first time he is trying to be helpful. I accept all that. However, the longer one lives, the more one starts to fear the thin end of wedges. When we start on a slippery slope, the slope becomes more and more slippery. The thin end of the wedge in what the Government are now doing is the use of armed forces to carry out civilian duties. That is how all military dictatorships start. They use armed forces for purposes that seem quite reasonable. Once we start to use armed forces for civilian purposes, we can go on and on. The temptation is great.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department was at one time Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. No one envies anyone such a job. There is some justification for using armed forces when there is urban terrorism. However, we are now proposing to use the Army for purposes that have nothing to do with the defence of the citizen from the threat of violence. We are beginning to use the Army as a civilian instrument pure and simple. That is how many military dictatorships started.
I wish that the Secretary of State for Defence were on the Government Front Bench to answer the question that I am about to put to the Home Secretary. What effect does the right hon. Gentleman think that this will have on Army recruitment? Much money is being spent on advertising campaigns to persuade chaps to join the Army. There are the lovely television commercials that feature the professionals. We see nice bronzed young men riding on the turrets of tanks to the admiration of smiling, appreciative populations, including a number of handsome young ladies. There are the television commercials about joining the Army and learning a trade. Are we now to have a television commercial to the effect "Join the Army and learn the trade of slopping out"?

Mr. Anderson: Or "Join the Army and see Wormwood Scrubs".

Mr. Mikardo: Are we to have the professionals acting as nursemaids to convicts? What sort of image will that give? The Bill has far more implications than would appear from the text. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Grantham. One must not look merely at the text. One must consider all that flows from it. Many provisions in the Bill are gravely disturbing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East that we could have a crack at improving many of the provisions in Committee. I shall end as I began, by asking what sort of Committee stage it will be if we are precipitated into it without any opportunity to consider and circulate amendments.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Nearly every speaker has deplored the fact that the House has fewer than 24 hours in which to consider an imprisonment Bill which contains unprecedented powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) emphasised, it is an unsatisfactory way of legislating. The Committee procedure is particularly unsatisfactory because, in theory, some amendments could be produced at the last minute, just before we start. We should have had a separate day for the Committee stage at least.
It is ironic and depressing that this should happen despite the fact that the committee—set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)—has reported and despite the fact that the Government have implemented many of its most important recommendations. They have done so with commendable haste. The recommendations that have been implemented include reorganisation of the prison service and the implementation of the main pay awards to prison officers. Despite that improvement, we are facing a worse crisis than we have seen for many years. The situation is deteriorating day by day.
The House has shown understanding and admiration for the work of prison officers. Many hon. Members have a unique and special knowledge of the onerous work undertaken by prison officers. Most hon. Members have paid

tribute to them. There is no doubt that all hon. Members are desperately anxious to see the dispute resolved. Everything possible must be done to settle the dispute so that the provisions of the Bill do not need to be enforced. Many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, have told the Home Secretary to go back to May. The Home Secretary has given three reasons for not doing so. I always think that if one gives three reasons it weakens one's case rather than strengthens it. It might have been better if the Home Secretary had given only one reason. His first point was that as May was an independent committee it was a means of arbitration. He argued that arbitration had already taken place.
The Home Secretary's second point was that even if he sent the dispute back to May, and even if May agreed with the prison officers, he did not have the £5 million to £10 million necessary. His third argument was that even if he had that money to spend on the prison service, he would not want to spend it in that way. He would prefer to spend it on other prison facilities. We are left with three arguments, but it is hard to analyse which argument led the Home Secretary to introduce a Bill rather than succeed in negotiations with the prison officers. Even if the Bill is enacted, the Home Secretary should continue the constant effort to resolve this dispute. I believe that that has been the theme of the speeches made by the Opposition. The Home Secretary should look again at page 231 of the May report and he should continue to have discussions with prison officers aimed at resolving the dispute.
As for the Home Secretary's new scheme which, we understand, he has put on the table, we wish it every success, but as far as I can see that will not resolve this aspect of the problem. It is more for the medium and long term. Obviously, that new scheme should also be discussed with the utmost urgency.
The Bill has a more optimistic side which has been mentioned by many of my hon. Friends. It will lead to the greater use of shorter and non-custodial sentences and the greater use of bail. In debate after debate on prisons we have stressed the importance of these measures, not only because of the sense of them


but because they will relieve the prison population. All informed opinion on these matters from people who have knowledge of the prison service, of probation and of dealing with offenders now tells us in report after report—and two have only just come out, one a Home Office report—that long sentences do nothing to discourage recidivism and that for a whole range of offences custodial sentences are totally inappropriate.
The message has gone out again from the House to the judiciary that we want to see these measures of shorter and non-custodial sentences introduced to a greater extent. We all look forward to the Minister of State answering the many detailed questions that were put to the Home Secretary. Although the questions were detailed, they were extremely important in their relation to human rights and the effects of the Bill.
We should like to know the exact function of the troops in the prisons in relation to the present police powers. Will the troops carry out any of the work that is at present contained specifically in the powers and functions of the police? Particular questions that I wish to ask relate to three amendments that I have tabled. I ask that a person who is remanded in custody by a magistrates' court and who is prevented from appearing before the court should at least be legally represented at the court when the order further remanding him is made. That is the least that can be done to protect that person's legal rights, and it would go some way towards reducing the great anxieties and concerns of many of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who is no longer with us, about the interference by the Executive with the judiciary. It would in some way alleviate the restriction on a person's legal rights that the Bill involves.
We must not allow the Bill to be the thin end of the wedge. It is unprecedented in its measures. Huge powers are given to the Home Secretary and to the Executive. Therefore, there has been constant concern during the debate about the duration of this so-called temporary provisions Bill. Not only are we rushing it through, but we are extremely concerned that these are not temporary provisions. We fear that they will become permanent

if they are allowed to do so. Therefore, we ask in our amendments that the provisions of part I should remain in force for one month rather than three unless continued by an order. That would alleviate much of the concern on the Opposition side of the House.
The second point about the duration has already been raised. We shall move an amendment, unless we can be reassured by the Minister of State when he replies, to overcome the provision in clause 8 which appears to make these provisions open-ended. I would think that that is the last thing that the Government want to do, and certainly it is not something that we would want to do. At present, clause 8 would remain on the statute book until repealed by an Act. In theory, in 50 years' time the powers in part I could be revived merely by order, without the need for a new Bill and for the Government to come back to the House to provide further legislation. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in 1976 made that error, but it was corrected by us when drawn to our attention. All that is needed is the amendment that we have tabled to add a reference to clause 8 (2) (b) in the first line of the clause.
I hope that the Minister of State will pay careful attention to the concern expressed about the effects of the Bill on civil liberties and the legal rights of people in detention. I hope that he can assure us that, if it has to be enforced, it will be as temporary as possible. We hope that it will never be enforced.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): Many hon. Members have understandably spoken of the dispute that has given rise to the Bill in the context of conditions in prisons generally and our penal policy as a whole. To the extent that we focused on those issues, we were continuing the debate on the May report last August, a debate which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) pointed out, did not last as long as we should have liked.
The issues raised, such as the role of imprisonment, its proper length, the correct use of bail, the handling of fines and fine defaulting, are substantial. I hope that in the response to that debate


in August and on the many occasions that my right hon. Friend and I have had to deal with these matters we have shown our concern. If we have not rectified the problems of generations overnight, we plead guilty.
Substantial issues relating to penal policy should not be dealt with by way of temporary provisions such as we are debating. Tempting as it would be to use the opportunity in that way, it would be wrong. I say that not to make a constitutional point but to stress the temporary nature of the provisions that we are seeking from the House.
The Bill is designed to deal with a particular situation—the industrial action being taken at the moment. It is, therefore, natural that hon. Members should ask whether a solution could not be found quickly to the dispute instead of seeking those powers.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the possibility of referring the dispute again to the May committee. My right hon. Friend explained why that would be difficult. I say to the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) that the reasons are no worse for being three in number. What matters is their validity. My right hon. Friend made clear that the precise claim that is the subject of the dispute was put to the May committee, which was as independent a committee as one could have had.
To ask the May committee to reconsider a claim which it had before it and which fell fairly and squarely within its terms of reference would be to put it in the impossible position of being asked, at pistol point, to change its mind. No other construction could be put on such a reference.
That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stressed that there is an alternative way forward. Referring the matter back to the May committee would be going back. The way forward is to continue the negotiations for a new system to deal with the anomaly that has given rise to the dispute. I see no reason why discussions on that matter should not continue. I regard that as a constructive way forward.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) referred to the May committee recommendation on a national procedural agreement and complained

that it had not been implemented. We have taken the view that the first priority should be the development of a new attendance system, but we are certainly anxious to make progress towards a new general procedural agreement along the lines recommended by the May committee. If it is of assistance for me to stress that to the House, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the chance to do so.
The POA has indicated that it wishes to take the initiative by putting forward proposals on that point. We are awaiting those proposals, and we are not saying that that is something which should not be done.

Mr. Heffer: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman had drawn to his attention the letter that Mr. John Bartell, the vice-chairman of the Prison Officers' Association, wrote to The Guardian, stating:
There are two claims in dispute, one of which May refused to make a ruling on. The other arose out of a ruling he made on a different submission. A ruling has therefore not been made on either claim by May. In any case you are surely not suggesting that we equate the May inquiry with arbitration"?
What answer does the Minister have to that?

Mr. Brittan: I do not accept the first point as being an accurate interpretation of what was and was not put to the May committee. There are technicalities relating to arbitration, and I do not suggest that the May committee fulfilled all the requirements of what counts technically as arbitration, but the key points are that the committee was completely independent, it had the opportunity of considering the issue, each of the parties put its case on the issue, and the committee formed a view.

Mr. Heffer: What is the answer to the letter to The Guardian?

Mr. Brittan: I have attempted to answer the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Heffer: You have not.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman may not be satisfied with the answer, but he must distinguish between an answer with which he does not agree and something which is not an answer.

Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the question.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman continues to interrupt from a sedentary position, but I feel that the point made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and which I have reiterated explains the position.
We are perfectly happy to continue discussions on the new system and we regard that as the constructive way forward, but as a result of the action taken by the POA the urgent measures before the House are required. It is plain that no Government could stand idly by in a situation in which people sentenced or remanded in custody by the courts are not being admitted to prisons. It is not tolerable to expect a Government simply to say, whatever the rights or wrongs of an industrial dispute, that they will allow those who have been remanded to custody or sentenced to a term of imprisonment to have their fate determined by a body outside the criminal justice system. Therefore, it it necessary and urgent for us to act.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and others have made it quite clear that we act with the greatest reluctance and only because of the exigencies of the situation. As somebody who has spent his working life in the law, I find that there is no more painful thing to have to do than to ask the House to give the Executive power to override the decisions of the judiciary. I do so with the greatest reluctance, but I do so because I am persuaded that, in the context of this dispute and the results flowing from it, this is absolutely necessary.
When there is talk about draconian measures, one point cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged. I refer to the suggestion made in particular by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that he as a libertarian had legitimate reasons for objecting to the Bill. With the exception of the one point relating to the Question of remand, to which I shall come later in my speech. the Bill, whether one likes it or not—and I do not like it—is not about putting people in prison. It is about letting people out of prison. In those circumstances, whilst it is objectionable in many ways as the operation of the Executive over the judiciary, it cannot fairly be described as a threat to civil liberties. To do him justice, the hon. Member for York (Mr.
Lyon), with whom I do not always agree, accepted that that was so.
I turn to the question of the precedent that the Bill sets. The extent of the anxiety, which is real, must depend upon the degree of danger of what we are doing today being regarded as a precedent which should be followed in ordinary times as well. That was the matter on which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) laid such stress.
What I say is that, tempting though it may be to regard the Bill as a way towards achieving some of the penal reform measures that some right hon. and hon. Members would wish, we are rejecting that temptation and in doing so are making it quite clear that what we are doing today is a temporary measure.
I am sure that I do not speak only for lawyers such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Fylde, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and myself in saying that I would not support for one second what is proposed if it were put forward on a permanent basis, as something that should become a regular part of the system of criminal justice.

Mr. John Loveridge: rose—

Mr. Brittan: Perhaps I may pursue the point that I am on because it may be the one that my hon. Friend has in mind.
Hearing the explanations from the Opposition Benches leads me to the next point that I was about to make, which is the status of the Bill. Anxiety has been expressed about clause 8 and the extent to which it is permanent. That concern has been widely expressed on both sides of the House, and we have listened carefully to the representations—in particular, those of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), with his experience, who leads for the Opposition on these matters. Those representations have been echoed by many of my hon. Friends.
Recognising the right concerns of the House in a matter as sensitive as this, I am prepared to undertake that we shall move amendments later tonight which will make significant changes in the renewal provisions of clause 8.
Briefly, we shall propose that all the periods of three months for the exercise


of the emergency powers specified in clause 8 should be reduced to one month. This means—I think that it alters the whole balance of the Bill—that in order to exercise these powers beyond one month we shall have to come back to this House for its approval. Many of the anxieties expressed—

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Loveridge: rose—

Mr. Brittan: I should like to develop this matter a little further, if my hon. Friends will bear with me, because it is intricate. I think that what I have stated makes a significant difference. It means that the House itself can scrutinise and, as this debate has shown, most certainly and very properly will scrutinise the exercise by the Executive of the unusual and emergency powers that we are seeking.
More significantly, I shall also be tabling amendments which will provide for a new provision under which all the provisions of the Act other than clauses 6 and 9 will terminate at the end of 12 months from Royal Assent unless Parliament approves an order extending their life in the meantime. Renewal orders would run for a further period of a year and the Act would remain renewable at the end of each yearly period. Parliament would therefore have the opportunity of controlling the continued life of the Act each year and, what is more, even while the full Act remained on the Statute Book because Parliament had so determined, the provisions in Part I could be activated only by the procedures—that is, the parliamentary procedures—and with the shorter operative periods of one month instead of three. I hope that the House will agree that this amounts to a real recognition of the concern that has been expressed on both sides of the House regarding this matter.

Mr. Loveridge: I am grateful, as I am sure are many hon. Members, to my hon. and learned Friend for what he has said with regard to amendments to clause 8. Many hon. Members were concerned that provisions which had lapsed could be revived by an affirmative order of the House. It appears from what my hon. and learned Friend says that although the period is now reduced to one month there is the possibility of the same revival by an order under the affirmative resolution procedure after the lapse of a prolonged

period. That does not amount to as much as many hon. Members had hoped. Will my hon. and learned Friend state whether he means to keep the power to revive much of this Bill by the affirmative resolution procedure only? Should he not have to come back to the House for a full and proper debate in order to revive anything other than the specific permanent powers?

Mr. Brittan: After the lapse of the month during the currency of the Bill, it would be necessary to come back to the House if one wanted another month. Whether the month was immediately consecutive or after an interval would make no difference. But the Bill itself would come to a total end and would no longer be on the statute book in any shape or form, with the exception of clause 6, which has not appeared to be the subject of great controversy, unless the House so determined and within a period of 12 months.

Mr. Budgen: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that it might be better to allow the whole Act to lapse after a year? If the Government then wanted to reintroduce it, it would be possible for the new, second Bill to go through all stages of consideration in a conventional way The disadvantage of reintroducing it by order is that there is no provision for line-by-line consideration and for proper and careful amendment.

Mr. Brittan: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I do not think that the danger is as great as he says. We have gone a long way to meet the concern of the House in making the changes that I have announced. The operation of the provisions which cause anxiety will be determined by the House, if we want to continue them for longer than a month or to revive them after a month. That is a pretty good safeguard in case we have them wrong or operated them in an unacceptable manner.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am grateful to the Minister, and I do not wish to weaken the force of what I said earlier. I had not considered a matter raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I do not ask for a reply tonight. The first time that the emergency provisions Act introduced by Roy Jenkins was brought back to the


House, we went through it line by line in Committee because we did not have the chance the first time round. I do not ask for a commitment now because I think that we have done rather well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Sometimes one does rather well by asking in that way. If it is necessary to consider the Bill again next year, we should have the chance to go through it clause by clause again.

Mr. Brittan: The right hon. Gentleman accepts that it is not possible for me to give an assurance tonight, but we shall consider what he has said.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As the Home Secretary is evidently willing to consider the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), I wonder whether he will take into account that adding to the words "will expire after a year" the phrase "unless renewed for a further year" carries the implication and presumption of a renewal and alters the sense of temporary nature which would otherwise flow from the total expiry after a year. My suggestion leads to the same conclusion as that of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South. Perhaps that final clause needs to be added.

Mr. Brittan: I shall consider what the right hon. Gentleman says about the phraseology. However, I must make it clear that I do not want the House to be under the impression that we feel able to go further than I have indicated. Our proposal amounts to a substantial change in that which was originally proposed and it is in response to the representations expressed in the House.
I turn to the provisions. The provision which has caused the most controversy, understandably, is that contained in clause 2 and relates to people being brought into court on remand under the so-called eight-day remand provision. The problem is that if one brings a prisoner into court and the court decides to remand him in custody there is no guarantee, to put it mildly, that it would be possible to return the prisoner to prison. For that reason, action on this front is necessary.
In the overwhelming majority of cases where there is a series of eight-day remands, only a formality is involved.
None-the-less, it is a matter of importance. I stress that nothing in the Bill alters the court's need to consider carefully a case, whether or not the alleged offender is physically before it. I appreciate that that does not meet the anxiety expressed by the House. We must seek as far as possible to arrange a provision under which either the court seeks to exercise its power and requires the person to be brought from the prison or, at least, the person is legally represented so that applications for bail and other matters can be made.
In order to consider what is necessary and appropriate, one must examine what happens now, because, although this is a real problem, it is a limited one. The question of legal aid may not at present be considered at the first remand hearing, and the person is then remanded in custody. Obviously, if he is given bail the whole question does not arise. On his second appearance in court, if he is remanded in custody the question of a bail application arises in the sense that, subject to questions of means, the court must offer him legal aid. In practice, that means that on second hearing he will not be represented but that he will be on the third.
Under the arrangements in clause 2, the defendant will not appear in court for a remand hearing unless the court has made a special direction. Therefore, unless we did something about it, on his second appearance in court—the first time he is brought from custody, or in this case, if he would not be brought from custody, the first time the case is considered in his absence—he would not be there and he would not be represented. We think it is highly desirable that defendants should be legally represented in that situation so that their eligibility for bail can be given proper consideration.
We are therefore proposing, by means of a circular to the courts, to ask the courts to give the most serious consideration to the grant of legal aid at the first remand hearing when the defendant is present rather than at the second remand hearing, as now happens. That means that where legal aid is granted at the second remand hearing the court would, in the absence of the prisoner, none the less be able to consider representations made on


his behalf by his lawyers for bail. We are, therefore, hoping to achieve by this means a way of securing representation at as early a point as possible for someone who cannot be brought into court.

Mr. Anderson: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is a question not just of ensuring that a defendant has access to legal representation at the earliest possible stage but of ensuring that the lawyer in question has access to the prisoner so that he is able effectively to put forward the case on the prisoner's behalf? What steps can be taken to ensure that the representation is therefore real representation?

Mr. Brittan: I think that the hon. Gentleman might address that question to the Prison Officers' Association, because at the moment, as far as we know, there has been no specific interference with legal visits, but at certain establishments on some days all visits have been prevented. Increasingly as people are not able to be put into prison but are put into police cells, into Frankland or whatever, the situation is different. Those responsible for running Frankland and the police will, of course, make sure that the most ready access is made available.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend has explained why it is not possible to agree to a specified appearance before a magistrates' court. The reason appears to be that in a large number of cases the offender will be held in a prison where there is industrial action. As I understand the position, however, the majority of offenders appearing before courts in the future will be held in one of the places designated under clause 1. I should have thought that there would be no difficulty about bringing such people before the courts at specified intervals.

Mr. Brittan: That is true except that one is envisaging a position in which substantial numbers of people will be in police cells. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) rightly said, the burden on the police is great. That must be taken into consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds raised the question of arming soldiers. Service men will not be routinely armed. If there is a threat of

serious disorder, the police will deal with it in the normal way. The chief constable will decide whether the police need to be armed and whether military assistance is necessary to deal with the disorder.
I turn to some of the points relating to the release of sentenced and unsentenced prisoners under the provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds was concerned that those released might impede the police in their investigations. We envisage that there will be bands of offences. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will decide whether a certain group in a band should be released from custody even though they have been committed for trial or remanded in custody. There will be one important proviso that will meet my hon. Friend's point. If in the opinion of the police a prisoner in a category for which my right hon. Friend has ordered release is a person who should not be released—whether for the reason put forward by my hon. Friend or for any other reason—the police will have an opportunity to make representations to my right hon. Friend, who will arrange for them to be considered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was concerned about the exercise of the provisions enabling my right hon. Friend to order the early release of sentenced prisoners. I am happy and willing to assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend has no intention whatsoever of using that power other than in the context of this dispute. It is a temporary power that will lapse at the end of one month unless the House orders to the contrary and it is thought necessary by my right hon. Friend to seek the consent of the House to such a course of action.
I readily concede, as everyone on the Conservative side of the House must do, that there could be nothing more distasteful for those of us—and I am sure it covers us all—who are imbued with a passionate belief in the importance of a properly working criminal justice system than to have to come to the House and put forward these measures. I hope that the House will feel that the measures are necessary in view of the position in which we find ourselves. I hope that the House will feel that they are no more than necessary. I hope also that


the House will feel that in response to the debate we have shown that we are as anxious as any hon. Member to limit those powers as narrowly as possible. We do not want them, but we need them. I hope that the House will decide that we shall have them.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I hope that the—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling): rose in

Division No. 471]
AYES
[9.55 pm

Alexander, Richard
Haselhurst, Alan
Pollock, Alexander

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Porter, Barry

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hawkins, Paul
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hawksley, Warren
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hayhoe, Barney
Proctor, K Harvey

Berry, Hon Anthony
Heddle, John
Raison, Timothy

Best, Keith
Henderson, Barry
Rathbone, Tim

Bevan, David Gilroy
Hicks, Robert
Rees-Davies, W. R.

Biggs-Davison, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Blackburn, John
Hooson, Tom
Rifkind, Malcolm

Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hordern, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Braine, Sir Bernard
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Bright, Graham
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Brinton, Tim
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Brittan, Leon
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Brotherton, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Browne, John (Winchester)
Kershaw, Anthony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Bruce-Gardyne, John
Knight, Mrs Jill
Silvester, Fred

Buck, Antony
Lang, Ian
Sims, Roger

Budgen, Nick
Laurence, Ivan
Skeet, T. H. H.

Burden, Sir Frederick
Lee, John
Speller, Tony

Butcher, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spence, John

Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Carlisle Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stainton, Keith

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Loveridge, John
Stanley, John

Chapman, Sydney
Luce, Richard
Stevens, Martin

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lyell, Nicholas
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Colvin, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil
Stokes, John

Cope, John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stradling Thomas, J.

Costain, Sir Albert
McNair-Wilson, Michael, (Newbury)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Critchley, Julian
McQuarrie, Albert
Tebbit, Norman

Crouch, David
Major, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Donald

Dorrell, Stephen
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Dover, Denshore
Mather, Carol
Thornton, Malcolm

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Townend, John (Bridlington)

Elliott, Sir William
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trippier, David

Eyre, Reginald
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waddington, David

Fairgrieve, Russell
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Wakeham, John

Faith, Mrs Sheila
Moate, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William

Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Monro, Hector
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Moore, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Fookes, Miss Janet
Morgan, Geraint
Wall, Patrick

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Watson, John

Fry, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Murphy, Christopher
Wheeler, John

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Myles, David
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neale, Gerrard
Wickenden, Keith

Glyn, Dr Alan
Nelson, Anthony
Wilkinson, John

Gorst, John
Normanton, Tom
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Gower, Sir Raymond
Onslow, Cranley
Wolfson, Mark

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Young, Sir George (Acton)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Grylls, Michael
Parris, Matthew
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gummer, John Selwyn
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Sir Ian
Mr. Peter Brooke.

NOES


Abse, Leo
Ashton, Joe
Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Alton, David
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Bradford, Rev. R.

Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Buchan, Norman

Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Heffer: It is not yet 10 o'clock, and I am on my feet. You called me, Mr. Speaker.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 84.

Campbell-Savours, Dale
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Race, Reg

Carmichael, Neil
Kilfedder, James A.
Richardson, Jo

Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Cook, Robin F.
McCartney, Hugh
Rooker, J. W.

Cunliffe, Lawrence
McCusker, H.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Davidson, Arthur
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
McElhone, Frank
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Dixon, Donald
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Skinner, Dennis

Duffy, A. E. P.
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Eadie, Alex
McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive

Eastham, Ken
McNamara, Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie

Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McTaggart, Robert
Stallard, A. W.

English, Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Steel, Rt Hon David

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Stoddart, David

Evans, John (Newton)
Maxton, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Field, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tilley, John

Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian
Wainright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Molyneaux, James
Weetch, Ken

Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morton, George
Winnick, David

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Young, David (Bolton East)

Haynes, Frank
Parry, Robert


Heffer, Eric S.
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Mr. Bob Cryer and

Home Robertson, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Homewood, William

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 77.

Thornton, Malcolm
Watson, John
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Wolfson, Mark

Trippier, David
Wheeler, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)

Waddington, David
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Wakeham, John
Whitney, Raymond
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Waldegrave, Hon William
Wickenden, Keith
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Wilkinson, John
Mr. Peter Brooke.

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

NOES


Abse, Leo
Heffer, Eric S.
Penhaligon, David

Alton, David
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Ashton, Joe
Home Robertson, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Homewood, William
Race, Reg

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hooley, Frank
Richardson, Jo

Beith, A. J.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rooker, J. W.

Bradford, Rev. R.
Kilfedder, James A.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Buchan, Norman
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Campbell-Savours, Dale
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis

Carmichael, Neil
McCusker, H.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Cook, Robin F.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Soley, Clive

Cunliffe, Lawrence
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie

Davidson, Arthur
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stallard, A. W.

Dixon, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Steel, Rt Hon David

Duffy, A. E. P.
McKelvey, William
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Eastham, Ken
McNamara, Kevin
Tilley, John

Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McTaggart, Robert
Wainright, Richard (Colne Valley)

English, Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Weetch, Ken

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Evans, John (Newton)
Maxton, John
Whitehead, Phillip

Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan
Winnick, David

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Young, David (Bolton East)

Foulkes, George
Molyneaux, James


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Anthony F. Bennett and

Haynes, Frank
Parry, Robert
Mr. Bob Cryer.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made and Question put,


That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]


The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 61.

Division No. 473]
AYES
[10.19 p.m.

Alexander, Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N)
Onslow, Cranley

Ancram, Michael
Grylls, Michael
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)

Aspinwall, Jack
Gummer, John Selwyn
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Parris, Matthew

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hawksley, Warren
Percival, Sir Ian

Berry, Hon Anthony
Hayhoe, Barney
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Best, Keith
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Proctor, K Harvey

Bevan, David Gilroy
Henderson, Barry
Raison, Timothy

Biggs-Davison, John
Hicks, Robert
Rathbone, Tim

Blackburn, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.

Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hooson, Tom
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Braine, Sir Bernard
Hordern, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Bright, Graham
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Brinton, Tim
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Brittan, Leon
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Brooke, Hon Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Brotherton, Michael
Kershaw, Anthony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Browne, John (Winchester)
Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Bruce-Gardyne, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred

Buck, Antony
Lee, John
Sims, Roger

Budgen, Nick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T. H. H.

Butcher, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Speller, Tony

Carlisle Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spence, John

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Loveridge, John
Stainton, Keith

Chapman, Sydney
Luce, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lyell, Nicholas
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Macfarlane, Neil
Stradling Thomas, J.

Cope, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael, (Newbury)
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Costain, Sir Albert
McQuarrie, Albert
Tebbit, Norman

Crouch, David
Major, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Donald

Dorrell, Stephen
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mates, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)

Dover, Denshore
Mather, Carol
nippier, David

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Waddington, David

Elliott, Sir William
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Waldegrave, Hon William

Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Watson, John

Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Moate, Roger
Whitney, Raymond

Fookes, Miss Janet
Morgan, Geraint
Wickenden, Keith

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Morris, Michael (Northampton. Sth)
Wilkinson, John

Freud, Clement
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Murphy, Christopher
Wolfson, Mark

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Myles, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)

Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neale, Gerrard


Gorst, John
Needham, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gow, Ian
Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Gower, Sir Raymond
Normanton, Tom
Mr. John Wakeham.

NOES


Abse, Leo
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Alton, David
English, Michael
McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Anderson, Donald
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McKelvey, William

Ashton, Joe
Evans, John (Newton)
McNamara, Kevin

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Field, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Beith, A. J.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maxton, John

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Foulkes, George
Mikardo, Ian

Buchan, Norman
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Molyneaux, James

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Haynes, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Campbell-Savours, Dale
Heffer, Eric S.
Paisley, Rev Ian

Cryer, Bob
Home Robertson, John
Parry, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence
Homewood, William
Penhaligon, David

Davidson, Arthur
Johnston, Russell (Invernees)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Dixon, Donald
Kilfedder, James A.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Duffy, A. E. P.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.

Eastham, Ken
McCusker, H.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Ross. Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stallard, A. W.
Winnick, David

Ross. Wm. (Londonderry)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Skinner, Dennis
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Tilley, John
Miss Jo Richardson and

Soley, Clive
Wainright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Mr. Martin Flannery.

Spearing, Nigel
Whitehead, Phillip

Question accordingly agreed to.

Further proceedings postponed, pursuant to order this day.

Motion made, and Question put,

Division No. 474]
AYES
[10.31 p.m.

Alexander, Richard
Grylls, Michael
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)

Ancram, Michael
Gummer, John Selwyn
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Aspinwall, Jack
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Parris, Matthew

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hawkins, Paul
Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hawksley, Warren
Percival, Sir Ian

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hayhoe, Barney
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Berry, Hon Anthony
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Proctor, K Harvey

Best, Keith
Henderson, Barry
Raison, Timothy

Bevan, David Gilroy
Hicks, Robert
Rathbone, Tim

Biggs-Davison, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Rees-Davies, W. R.

Blackburn, John
Hooson, Tom
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hordern, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Braise, Sir Bernard
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Bright, Graham
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Brinton, Tim
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Brittan, Leon
Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Brooke, Hon Peter
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Brotherton, Michael
Lee, John
Silvester, Fred

Bruce-Gardyne, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger

Buck, Antony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, T. H. H.

Budges, Nick
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spence, John

Butcher, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Carlisle Kenneth (Lincoln)
Loveridge, John
Stainton, Keith

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Lyell, Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Macfarlane, Neil
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Chapman, Sydney
McNair-Wilson, Michael, (Newbury)
Stradling Thomas, J.

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
McQuarrie, Albert
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Major, John
Tebbit, Norman

Costain, Sir Albert
Marlow, Tony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Dorrell, Stephen
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Donald

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mates, Michael
Thorne, Nell (Ilford South)

Dover, Denshore
Mather, Carol
Townend, John (Bridlington)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Trippier, David

Elliott, Sir William
Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wakeham, John

Eyre, Reginald
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William

Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Watson, John

Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Moate, Roger
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Fookes, Miss Janet
Morgan, Geraint
Whitney, Raymond

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Morris, Michael (Northampton. Sth)
Wickenden, Keith

Freud, Clement
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wilkinson, John

Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Murphy, Christopher
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Myles, David
Wolfson, Mark

Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neale, Gerrard
Young, Sir George (Acton)

Gorst, John
Needham, Richard


Gow, Ian
Nelson, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gower, Sir Raymond
Normanton, Tom
Mr. David Waddington and

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N)
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. John Cope

NOES


Alton, David
English, Michael
McKelvey, William

Ashton, Joe
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McNamara, Kevin

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Beith, A. J.
Field, Frank
Maxton, John

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Foulkes, George
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Campbell-Savours, Dale
Haynes, Frank
Paisley, Rev Ian

Cryer, Bob
Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence
Home Robertson, John
Parry, Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Homewood, William
Penhaligon, David


Dixon, Donald
Kilfedder, James A.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Eastham, Ken
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Rooker, J. W.


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

That, at this day's sitting, the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 52.

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Winnick, David

Skinner, Dennis
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Tilley, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Soley, Clive
Wainright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Mr. Martin Flannery and

Spearing, Nigel
Whitehead, Phillip
Miss Jo Richardson

Question accordingly agreed to.

IMPRISONMENT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (MONEY)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the detention of persons who may lawfully be detained in penal institutions in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Clause 7 of part II provides:
There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of this Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the provisions of this Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other Act."

We have not heard from the Government any clear statement of what precisely is involved. A reply was given by the Home Secretary at Question Time yesterday in which he said that, if the claim of the prison officers were to be settled in full, it would cost about £10 million now and a further £3 million a year in the future. The right hon. Gentleman added:
On the basis of the pay and allowances I have described, that seems to be—"[Official Report, 27 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 51.]
At that point, one of my hon. Friends said "Peanuts". The point is that we do not know precisely the amount that is likely to be paid out as a result of the Bill. It is my contention that the amount to be paid as a result of the Bill will be much higher than any settlement made with the Prison Officers' Association. As my hon. Friend said, it is peanuts. The amount is £10 million and £3 million a year in the future.

Mr, Clive Soley: Does not the case become even stronger when one takes account of the fact that the prison officers have asked that the matter—this has been put time and again to Ministers in the debate—should be sent back to the May committee for a recommendation? The POA has said that it is not necessarily expecting the whole of the back pay, which is the bulk of the £10 million to which my hon. Friend refers. The figure would be likely to be £2 million, £3 million, £4 million, or £5 million at the most.

Mr. Heffer: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The figures I mentioned were those given by the Home Secretary. Even if those were correct, they would be a small amount in relation to the problem with which we are dealing. We do not know exactly the amount that will be paid under the financial provisions. No estimate of any kind has been made by the Government. They have not so far given a figure. What will it be? How much will the Army cost if brought in?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It occurred to me that it could be a very small figure, especially if Lord Vestey's accountant were let loose on it. It would get down to about 10 quid.

Mr. Heffer: I take the point. Some hon. Members should perhaps have Lord Vestey's accountant. Perhaps our tax would not be as high as it is.
In all seriousness—I am being very serious—we have not heard any figure from the Government. The Government should say what is likely to be involved in the payment under the provisions of clause 7. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) rightly said that the prison officers wanted to take the matter back to a sub-committee of the May committee as a form of arbitration. The final settlement might be very little.
I draw the attention of the House to the letter sent by Mr. John Bartell, vice-chairman of the Prison Officers' Association, to the editor of The Guardian on


29 September. The letter is relevant to the finances involved. He said:
There are two claims in dispute, one of which May refused to make a ruling on, the other arose out of the ruling he made on a different submission.
Two claims are involved. They are claims 16 and 17—to use the prison service terminology. One is a general claim and the other is the Liverpool claim.
The Prison Officers' Association has made clear throughout that it is prepared to accept arbitration, even if the arbitrators go against it. That should be stressed. The association has pointed out that Lord McCarthy was the chairman of an arbitration set-up which found against the association but it accepted his decision without argument. It is saying now that it will do the same.
The Government ask the House to accept provisions the cost of which we do not know. We do not know the amount involved. It could be well above the £13 million or lower estimates. Yet the prison officers have said that they will accept independent arbitration without question.
The Government are acting irresponsibly. It would be cheaper for the nation for the Government to sit round the table with the Prison Officers' Association and settle the matter than to engage in confrontation which could cost enormous sums. I urge the Government to think again.
A letter dated 29 August from the Prison Officers' Association to its branches reads:
The NEC believes that the association has justice on its side in seeking arbitration on the two claims referred to. Equally, it believes that the Home Office will be hard pressed to answer the association's case in each such forum.
I draw the House's attention to The Daily Telegraph. I am not renowned for supporting its ideas, but on occassions flashes of wisdom appear in its editoral columns. On 15 October The Daily Telegraph stated:
It is not political penetration which has driven them"—
that is, the prison officers—
to militancy nor entirely the growing burdens they have to bear as the consequence of over-crowding, under-manning, and the continuing

use of antique premises. Many of them are convinced that the system which they are required to administer has become from the prisoner's point of view, no less than from that of his warder's, a social scandal.
It then continues on the financial question. It says:
Mr. Whitelaw is right to be chary of submitting pay disputes in the public sector to arbitration; but the prison officers' demand (which appears to be, essentially, equal pay for equal work) must command some sympathy. The Government must not forget either its commitment to exempt law enforcement, like national defence, as far as possible from the rigours of its fiscal policy.
The rigours of the Government's fiscal policy are the cause of the dispute. Their attitude to public expenditure is the basic cause. They say that they cannot afford the £10 million that it would cost to concede the claim. The prison officers say that it is much less—£3 million. However, in the Bill the Government are making financial provisions whose extent no one knows and which could cost far more than settling the claim. In the old Westerns, the Indians used to say that the white man spoke with forked tongue. The Government are now speaking with a forked tongue.
It was interesting to hear the suggestion from the Government Front Bench that it was possible to release certain categories of prisoners when it was impossible to release them in the past. If it is possible to release them now during an emergency. why could not they have been released in the past? The Government are prepared to do it now only because they want to take on the prison officers. There are enlightened people in this country who have argued that we could have done this sort of thing before to alleviate prison overcrowding, which has persisted for far too long.
I am concerned not only with the prison officers' case but with the terrible and miserable conditions that are suffered by the prisoners. We have been told that we have not had the money to rectify that problem. I therefore submit that we cannot possibly accept the financial provisions in the Bill because we do not know what they involve. We are being asked to give the Government a blank cheque, to say that, whatever the sum, the Government should be allowed to spend it. That is not good


enough. Even on the basis of the Government's argument, it is not good enough. They are advancing a two-faced argument on this question.
If the Government want to solve this problem, they can do so very quickly. They could accept the suggestion of the Prison Officers' Association that the matter be referred to an independent arbitrator, to ACAS, or to a subcommittee of the May committee. That would cost much less than what the Government are seeking to do in the Bill. We cannot possibly accept the Bill, and I ask the House to oppose the money resolution unless we get a firm and clear declaration from the Government that they will change their attitude.

Mr. Keith Stainton: With respect to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I think that he missed an important point. I refer the House to the explanatory and financial memorandum. which gives a shorthand, plain English summary of the meaning of the various clauses. Page ii of the memorandum gives an interpretation of the financial effects of the Bill. It states:
Arrangements will be made to meet all the additional expenditure resulting from the provisions of the Bill from the Prisons vote.
That is ambiguous. At first sight my interpretation is that, whatever the exercise costs, it will be taken off a fixed amount already voted for the prisons. It will denude to that extent the existing amount going through the prison service which, as everyone knows, in capital terms is far from adequate. That is my interpretation of the explanatory memorandum. It is all that we have at hand to guide us. I hope that the Minister will endeavour to explain that point when responding to the debate.

Mr. Bob Cryer: During the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), a Conservative Back Bencher shouted that sending the matter to arbitration would be caving in. It is redolent of the attitude of the Tories that as soon as a body or person is invoked to make a judgment—a proposal accepted by the prison officers—that is treated as caving in. That means that they will cost the nation

millions of pounds in additional expenditure because of pride. They will never again be able to ask any group of workers to accept arbitration, because they are not prepared to accept it themselves. If workers say that they are not prepared to accept arbitration, they will be able to quote the Government's attitude. They will say that they do not wish to cave in.
I entirely endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Walton. In nearly every working to rule or strike great minds say that is costing an enormous amount of money and that the strikers should return to work. However, the actual cost of trying to defeat a reasonable compromise and settlement costs more than that asked for originally. An attitude of confrontation is built up by the employers or, in this case, the Government, who are also the employers.
The explanatory memorandum points out:
Expenditure will be incurred by the police and the armed services in carrying out additional duties consequent on the provisions of the Bill.
The point has been made that there is no clear source of money. If money has to be found, the Government will not close prisons to meet the expenditure. They cannot denude the prison Vote because of the additional expenditure involved. The money will have to be found from somewhere. The amount will depend on the duration and seriousness of the destruction of the prison service. It is an open-ended commitment to expenditure. That is less than satisfactory.
The Home Office said that settling the prison officers' dispute on their terms—the Government say that their case is so strong that that could not possibly happen, although they will not send it to arbitration where the strength of their case could be tested—will cost about £10 million. Where could they find that £10 million? They could find it from the Home Office Vote. I recall that before the recess the Home Secretary said that the Home Office would find an additional £18 million for civil defence expenditure. They would provide improved reception for the "trannies" when people followed Home Office directions and spent a fortnight or so under the kitchen table to ward off the effects of a nuclear holocaust, or were busy whitewashing their


windows. They would therefore hear very clearly on improved radio frequencies all the warnings of the megatonnage to be dropped. The bolt holes for the bureaucrats would be refurbished at suitably high cost.
We know that this is a gigantic confidence trick—indeed, a cruel one—a complete hoax and a fraud. It discredits the Home Office and every Minister who subscribes to it. Therefore, why not abandon it and accept the truth? There is no defence against nuclear warfare, and the best means of defence is to get rid of nuclear weapons. Even if they do not go so far as that, which I do not expect them to do, why not simply say "All right, we will revise our plans. We will not get this money from some other source". Indeed, the Home Secretary may not have found this sum of money because during the exchange of bluster which passes for Secretary of State replies he was not quite sure where the money would come from.

Mr. Skinner: Defence.

Mr. Cryer: No, the Secretary of State said that it would come from within the Home Office Vote. Therefore, there are significant chunks of money floating around the Home Office which can be moved around from section of expenditure to section of expenditure. Here is an opportunity, by the Home Secretary's own admission. There is money within the Home Office which can be reallocated
We do not think that some of that allocation is wise or sensible. Indeed, we regard it as a cruel deception on the nation at large. When I say "we", I mean the Labour Party at large.—[HON. MEMBERS: "You mean yourself".] Not at all. If Conservative Members look at the resolutions that were passed at our last annual conference, they will find exactly that sense. Had they been present at the magnificent demonstration on Sunday of 100,000 or so people, they would have found a strong sense of criticism the Home Office view of civil defence. If Conservative Members find the whole thing so amusing. why do they not organise a demonstration of 100,000 people for nuclear weapons and civil defence? My guess is that they could not possibly do it, because people are

genuinely apprehensive about the whole position.
The point that I was making was that the Home Office is allocating expenditure within its budget for purposes which, to say the least, are somewhat dubious and can be condemned completely by right-thinking people. Why not use that money to stop the development of an absurdity in which the rights of Parliament are being trampled on, in which legislation is not being given sufficient consideration and in which money is being wasted?
If the resolution of this dispute is to hold for any sort of time, more money will be spent on alternative facilities than would have settled the dispute in the first place, even—contrary to the Government's confident assertions—allowing for the fact that any arbitrator may have found in favour the Prison Officers' Association completely and fully.
The Government say that arbitrators would not find that anyhow. Therefore, why not get rid of this absurd exercise? Stop trampling on the rights of Parliament. Stop wasting public money. Put this matter to arbitration. We do not want to see the prison service in further demoralised disarray. This must be causing concern to many decent, hardworking people who are often praised by Conservative Members for being virtuous. They are still the same people. They are still part of the uniformed section of employees who normally invoke lavish praise from Conservative Members, such as the police, the Army, the prison service. Normally one cannot stop the praise from the Conservative Benches for those protective services. But they are still the same people. They have a legitimate claim which they are prepared to put to arbitration, and, in fairness, the Government should be able to accept that.
We should not let this money resolution go through without a measure of protest—even from half a dozen Labour Members. I do not mind too much about the numbers, but it often happens that if there is not a Division on a measure, the message goes out from this House that it was passed without a Division, on the nod implying that there was no dissension. But there is dissension on this matter. Dissidents normally receive high


praise from Conservative Members, but they generally have to be conveniently several thousand miles away, preferably in Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia. Tonight Labour Members are taking a dissident view of this expenditure because we do not feel that it has been satisfactorily explained by the Government, and we feel that it is entirely unjustified. I firmly believe that in a few days or weeks the cost will have outweighed the original cost.
On Second Reading I said that when Conservatives talked about democracy they spoke, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walton said, with a forked tongue. We can learn a few lessons from the Conservatives from the way in which they behave utterly ruthlessly with all democratic tenets and precepts.
The Minister of State believes passionately in the Executive not being involved in the judiciary. He believes passionately in democracy and in the procedures of the House of Commons—until it comes to the point when he needs to push them to one side. He says that this Bill is in the national interest. We are prepared to give a massive amount of time to debating the abolition of the House of Lords. If we debate the issue for two days, it will be double the time given to this measure. We shall be prepared to debate the money resolution. We shall be prepared to give the debate on the abolition of the House of Lords five times the time that the Tories have been prepared to give to this Bill.
Whenever there is an example of the way in which legislation can be forced through the House, it is not the Labour Party that is responsible. We always bend over backwards to give the right of consultation. We enable people to be brought in to air their views in the various Committee Rooms, through consultative documents, and so on. We go to the greatest possible lengths to consult. The lesson that we can learn from the Government's handling of this measure is the speed with which they have acted. We are expresing an opposing view. We do not like the way in which the money is being used. We do not like the way in which the measure is being forced through the House. We are prepared to be more generous and

give double the time for the debate on the abolition of the House of Lords.
Let the Tories take the message that we have noted their ruthlessness. We deplore it and we are prepared to be more democratic. We oppose this money resolution.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: In our proceedings today we have witnessed the total contempt of the Government for the House of Commons. They put forward the money resolution without giving the House any explanation of where the money will be found. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) asked earlier about reimbursing the police authorities for the costs they had already incurred in holding prisoners in police stations. He was particularly concerned about Durham, where the police will have to take over responsibility for security at the new Frankland prison.
We were told by the Home Secretary that he would not be giving the answers but that they would be given in the winding-up speech. But no one has given any answers at all to what is to be done about reimbursing the police authorities. Everyone is aware that local authorities are now under great financial pressure. They want an answer to that question. But we have not had an answer under the money resolution or the main debate. I hope that the Minister will now make absolutely clear an undertaking that appears to be written into the Bill—that the police authorities will he fully reimbursed for all the expenditure in which they are involved in carrying out the Government's wishes on this matter.

Mr. Clive Soley: I speak again because, having heard most of the Minister's summing up earlier., I saw no significant move on his part towards making a gesture towards the Prison Officers' Association on the lines that I indicated to him. I pointed out, by quoting a number of parts of the May report, that it was quite a fair statement by the POA that it had not had arbitration on this part of the award. I referred the Minister to a couple of paragraphs for consideration on that matter.
If the Minister is prepared to ride roughshod over the democratic interests of not only the House but also the country at large, I can only assume that it is because the Treasury is saying to the Home Office "You cannot have this award, because, if you do, others will follow". If that is the Government's view, I cannot think of anything more unlikely to be the case. When the present Government came to office, they honoured some of the previous commitments under Clegg and others. If we read this part of the May report in any sensible, intelligent way, we find that it is clear that some move could be made towards an arbitration without changing anything about future policy.
In both of the paragraphs that I quoted to the Minister, May states very clearly that there is a possibility of further negotiation. Indeed, in one of them, May pointedly says that there should be a matter for further negotiation between the two parties. On the specific claim, No. 17, to which the POA refers, May distinctly stated that he and his committee were not setting themselves up as arbitrators.
As again I said to the Minister earlier, the other actions of May have to some extent brought out the present anomaly, and they have also created a situation in which some officers get an allowance and some do not, depending on the situation.
There is no justification for the Treasury to argue that this is a foot in the door for other claims. There is no reason to believe that the POA would pursue this matter unreasonably. Everything that has been said to me by POA officials and by many other prison officers around the country indicates that they are willing and anxious to have some offer of arbitration. It is clear from what they say that there is an expectation that the full backdating would not be involved—which is where the magical figure of £10 million comes from.
The POA is prepared to move on that matter. As I have said here on many occasions, I had been a fundamental critic of the POA on many of the things it has done and said previously, but on this issue I believe that the POA has a lot of right on its side. It is behaving with a degree of responsibility which should set an example to the Government

and should not be responded to in a way which offends against the basic constitution of this country and the expectations of its citizens.

Mr. John Tilley: Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as the £10 million backdating being possibly an overstatement from the Government, their suggestion that it would cost £3 million a year from now on, because these continuous duty credits stem from overtime, means that the Government are assuming that there will be current levels of overtime which come directly from, and as a consequence of, the current levels of overcrowding? Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government had the right sort of policies of penal reform, to which they give lip service in debates but do not seem to be very willing to put into operation, that figure of £3 million would be much lower? The tragedy is that, because the cost of all this, as has been pointed out, will come from the existing prison Vote, the chances of reducing overcrowding, and therefore reducing overtime, and therefore reducing the cost of these continuous duty credits, will be even less as a result of this legislation.

Mr. Soley: I accept my hon. Friend's intervention. He has many good arguments that tell in his favour.
If the Minister reads paragraphs 9.10 and 9.29 of the May report, he will learn that the Prison Officers' Association has a good case for arbitration. He could settle the dispute now, without any of this offensive legislation. He could do so in the first instance without paying out any money. He might even get an arbitration in his favour if he did but have the wit to respond to the association.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): During the debate—

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that it is possible for one Minister to answer for another, but this is a money resolution debate. The Treasury is represented by two Ministers on the Treasury Bench, one of them a Cabinet Minister whose name is on the Bill. The Chief Secretary is present and another Treasury Minister is present.


Would it not be possible for us to conform to the normal custom and have a Treasury Minister reply to the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is not a point of order for me. The Government must take responsibility for who answers a debate.

Mr. Brittan: Some serious points have been made during the course of the debate on the money resolution. However, there has been an extensive debate on a wide variety of issues that do not, on the face of it, arise from the Bill, still less the money resolution, such as a civil defence and the reform or abolition of the House of Lords.
Some Labour Members have suggested that these procedures set a precedent that they might find useful on another occassion. A relevant comparison is to take the proposal of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) to abolish the House of Lords. If the hon. Gentleman were to follow the precedent that it is now claimed we are setting, he would abolish it for one month and then reinstate it. As I understand it, he is not content with so limited a measure of constitutional reform. He cannot pray in aid anything that is being done in the Bill to support his designs on the House of Lords.
The extravagent expressions that have been uttered about democracy are not relevant. We have proceeded in a proper parliamentary way. We have done what has been done in emergencies in the past. The House will have to concede that on Second Reading we considered carefully the arguments that were presented and attempted to deal with them, including making a major change in the Bill that we have announced.
Rather than attempting to deal with constitutional points of dubious relevance to the money resolution and of still less validity, I shall take the limited time that I propose to spend on the money resolution to deal briefly with the financial aspect and to take up some of the arguments advanced by some Labour Members, especially by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), who obviously felt that I was unable to do justice to his remarks on Second Reading. I do not mind having another go.
In a debate of this sort we can only indicate the categories of expenditure that are likely to arise. That has been

done in the Bill. The amount that will have to be spent must depend on the duration and extent of the dispute, which we hope will be as short as possible. It would be unrealistic to attempt to put a figure on it at this stage.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North has once again asked us to consider the terms of the May report.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Brittan: I think that I should respond to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) knows that time is limited. I am sure that he will feel that his hon. Friend's comments are worthy of an answer.

Mr. Heffer: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Britain: I will not do so now. I shall do so if there is time.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Brittan: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I would give way and I said clearly that I would not.

Mr. Heffer: What about dates?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman will get nothing by shouting that he will not secure by the ordinary process. The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North raised a serious point but the hon. Member for Walton obviously does not want to hear it answered. I propose to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North. He asked whether we had looked at paragraph 9.10 of the May report. He believes that that paragraph suggests the possibility of a further reference to May.
In that paragraph Mr. Justice May explained clearly that he had considered the various claims, including claim 16, on the basis of entitlement. He looked at the various agreements and practices that had developed in the prison service and formed a view, which he stated in the report, about the entitlement of various people under the arrangements as he, properly, interpreted them. If he had gone beyond that, he would have considered not only entitlements under the existing arrangements and agreements as properly interpreted, but also


fresh claims. If he had done that, he would have had to look at something completely separate in a different way.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North will appreciate that if we did as he suggested, it would involve reopening not only this claim—which was put to Mr. Justice May and in respect of which he did not find in favour of the POA—but all the other claims that the May committee considered. One could not avoid that conclusion. The result would be extremely undesirable, because after May had reported on the various claims the Government implemented all the recommendations. As Mr. Justice May said,
We have accordingly proceeded upon a strict basis of entitlement.
It would be possible to refer the matter to him again only if one proceeded not on the basis of entitlement but on the basis of claim. That would be a completely different approach and it would throw open once again all the matters that have been resolved.

Mr. Soley: The failure of the Minister's case is that he has an extra

Division No. 475]
AYES
[11.25 p.m.


Alexander, Richard
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Ancram, Michael
Carel-Jones, Tristan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gow, Ian
Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Gower, Sir Raymond
Moate, Roger

Berry, Hon Anthony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N)
Morgan, Geraint

Best, Keith
Grylls, Michael
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)

Biggs-Davison, John
Gummer, John Selwyn
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Blackburn, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Murphy, Christopher

Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Myles, David

Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard

Braine, Sir Bernard
Hayhoe, Barney
Needham, Richard

Bright, Graham
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Nelson, Anthony

Brinton, Tim
Henderson, Barry
Normanton, Tom

Brittan, Leon
Hicks, Robert
Onslow, Cranley

Brooke, Hon Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)

Brotherton, Michael
Hooson, Tom
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)

Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hordern, Peter
Parris, Matthew

Buck, Antony
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Fatten, Christopher (Bath)

Budgen, Nick
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Percival, Sir Ian

Butcher, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Proctor, K Harvey

Carlisle Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rathbone, Tim

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lang, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.

Colvin, Michael
Lee, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Cope, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Costain, Sir Albert
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Dorrell, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Dover, Denshore
Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Elliott, Sir William
Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred

Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael, (Newbury)
Sims, Roger

Faith, Mrs Shelia
McQuarrie, Albert
Skeet, T. H. H.

Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Major, John
Speller, Tony

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marlow, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stainton, Keith

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor

Freud, Clement
Mather, Carol
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

expectation which the POA does not have. The POA wants to refer this particular dispute to the May committee or to a sub-committee of May. That is what matters. It does not reopen everything else because the POA knows that the longer term will be settled by changing the system.

Mr. Brittan: On what basis can this dispute be put forward? It has been considered on the basis of entitlement and it has not been accepted. If it is put forward on the basis of a fresh claim, that basis will be different from the one used in settling everything else. One cannot say that everything else will be considered on the basis of entitlement, but that because Mr. Justice May did not give the answer that we wanted on this issue we shall invite him—
It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 49.

Stradling Thomas, J.
Trippier, David
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Waldegrave, Hon William
Wolfson, Mark

Tebbit, Norman
Watson, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Thompson, Donald
Wickenden, Keith
Mr. John Wakeham and

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wilkinson, John
Mr. David Waddington

Townend, John (Bridlington)

NOES


Alton, David
Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo

Ashton, Joe
Heffer, Eric S.
Rooker, J. W.

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Home Robertson, John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Beith, A. J.
Homewood, William
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hooley, Frank
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Kilfedder, James A.
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Cryer, Bob
McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Steel, Rt Hon David

Davidson, Arthur
McKelvey, William
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Dixon, Donald
McNamara, Kevin
Tilley, John

Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Whitehead, Phillip

Eastham, Ken
Maxton, John
Winnick, David

Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Mikardo, Ian


English, Michael
Paisley, Rev Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Evans, John (Newton)
Parry, Robert
Mr. Clive Soley and

Field, Frank
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Martin Flannery

Foulkes, George
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved.

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to the detention of persons who may lawfully be detained in penal institutions in England and Wales, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of that Act; and
(b) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.

IMPRISONMENT (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Postponed proceedings resumed.

Bill immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to order this day.

[Mr. Bernard Weatherill in the Chair]

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. The position we find ourselves in as a result of the emergency created by the rush to get this Bill through is best illustrated if we try to pick our way through the list of amendments. It would be useful if the Committee were to adjourn for an hour so that we could establish where we are.
It is difficult to identify which of the amendments tabled has been selected, which is likely to be discussed and which amendments have been overtaken by the

concessions made by the Government. Further, there is at least one major amendment yet to be tabled by the Government to fulfil the undertaking given by the Minister. I do not know when it is to be tabled.
I can best explain the difficulty by referring to the third amendment selected, which is given as—
"Clause 1, page 2, line 20"
There are two amendments that could easily be identified by that description. One is in my name, relating to the question of the constable and the prison officer, and the other is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and deals with a quite different situation. I do not know whether I am supposed to move my amendment or my hon. Friend is supposed to move his. No doubt you will know, Mr. Weatherill, on the basis of the indication from the Clerk. How the Minister is to reply I know not.
Would it not be wise for us to adjourn for a little while so that there could be negotiations through—I can hardly say "the usual channels"—the unusual channels, so that we can understand what it is we are about to discuss for the next eight hours or so and thereby sort out some of the difficulties so that we might take rather less time in Committee? I submit that we should be allowed this period of grace to put ourselves in order.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. My hon. Friend is on to an important point. If you will look at the fourth set of amendments on the provisional selection you will notice an amendment there in my name, which I did not table. I have an amendment on the list which refers to page 9 of the Bill when there are only six pages to the Bill. More important, if you look at the eleventh set of provisionally selected amendments, those dealing with clause 8, you will see that there is reference to an amendment on page 5, line 28, and page 5, line 31. There are amendments tabled exactly conforming to those terms in my name and in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). Neither my right hon. Friend nor I know which amendment has been selected and which of us will have to move it.
There is a great deal of confusion, which is not surprising in the circumstances, and it would be a great help if we were able to consider the amendments in a slightly less rushed and more dispassionate manner, particularly so that we can consider in detail the amendment that I gather the Government have tabled, but which is not yet available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I am concerned that the selection has been hasty.

The Chairman: Order. That is a reflection on me. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the selection was not hasty, and I assure the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) that I, and not the Clerk, select amendments.

Mr. Cryer: Because of how we are dealing with the Bill, you, Mr. Weatherill, obviously had less time for the selection of amendments than you would have wished. The first two amendments to clause 1, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), were not selected. They refer to the possibility of orders being obtained from the House for the categorisation of places that are to be termed prisons. I understand that those amendments were felt to be in conflict with clause 8. But that is not so, though I can understand—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is questioning my selection and I cannot allow that.

Mr. Cryer: I am not questioning your selection, Mr. Weatherill. I am questioning the amount of time that you have had to examine these and other amendments and to make a comprehensive selection. It is beyond doubt that insufficient time has been provided for you.

The Chairman: An adjournment would not make any difference. I will not re-think the selection. I went through the manuscript amendments carefully and made what I consider to be a generous selection. I think that we should now proceed.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Surely it is the case that if an hon. Member informs you and the Committee that an amendment standing in his name is not to be moved by him that amendment will fall and that will be the end of the matter. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) said that an amendment attributed to him had not been tabled by him. Surely that disposes of the amendment. It must fall if its alleged mover disclaims movement of it.

The Chairman: I am satisfied that all the amendments that I have selected are in order. Correspondingly, many of those not selected were not in order.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I am not questioning the fairness or appropriateness of your selection. However, you may know which amendments you have selected, but I do not know. In particular, there are amendments to clause 8 in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South. They are different amendments, which is exactly the point that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) was making about a different clause. Which amendment has been selected, and which hon. Member will move it, Mr. Weatherill? That is what we want to know.

The Chairman: The answer to that is the Shadow Home Secretary.

Mr. English: I am not, Mr. Weatherill, challenging your provisional selection as it is stated on the piece of


paper that we have. There are 26 draft amendments mentioned on it that you have provisionally selected, and I am not challenging those. I am sure that you provisionally selected them upon the assumption that they were due to be tabled.
The basic rule of the House is that amendments must be tabled after the Second Reading. I checked a moment ago, and as far as I am aware only four amendments have been so tabled. The 26 which end up with the words
New Clause (Kilroy-Silk's First)"—
a somewhat unusual way of putting it, and I think slightly unlikely, in any case—were not tabled after the Second Reading.
There are two sets of circumstances. Like you, Mr. Weatherill, I have been in queues of Members just in front of the Opposition Front Bench, near the Table, trying to get in amendments on occasions such as this immediately after the Second Reading and before the Committee stage of a Bill that is passing through all its stages immediately. That is not happening tonight.
I also recall occasions when the Government have tabled motions stating that amendments can be put down before a Bill's Second Reading has taken place, to avoid that queueing procedure. There was a business motion earlier. It was passed on the nod with the help of the Opposition and everyone in the House. But the Government simply forgot to provide that we could table amendments before the Second Reading had taken place.
It may be said that there are precedents for this rather slovenly way of proceeding. If that is so, why were some amendments issued through the Vote Office as if they had been laid before Second Reading, and amendments that were also put in the Table Office before Second Reading were not put in the Vote Office for hon. Members to see?
The Clerks at the Table cannot have it both ways. If they are choosing to act as if the Government had put down a motion that the Government forgot to put down, they should not have allowed some amendments to be presented by the Table Office to the Vote Office, to be issued to hon. Members, and have forgotten to put others there.

They should have treated them all equally.

The Chairman: The House has been in this position before when we have had a Bill going through all its stages in one day. We have had to accept manuscript amendments. One could not be certain what time the Second Reading debate would conclude. Therefore, I had to make a provisional selection at an appropriate moment in order to get it circulated to hon. Members.
All the amendments, including the hon. Gentleman's amendments, were seen by me in manuscript. Some of them were typed and circulated up to that point, but after I had made my selection the rest of the amendments were not at that stage circulated. Any amendments that came in after that manuscript were also seen by me. I did not feel able to select any more of them. The hon. Member's manuscript amendment was certainly seen and considered.

Mr. English: Of course, I believe you, Mr. Weatherill, but could you take under advisement this slovenly procedure whereby some amendments are treated as if they had been laid when they were not, and others are treated as if they had not been laid when they were? It would be far better if the Officers of the House relied on the motions put down and dealt with amendments laid after the Second Reading, unless there is a motion tabled by the Government, and passed by the House, saying that they can be laid that. It is a slovenly procedure simply to assume that one can act as if the put down a motion that Government had put down a motion that the Government forgot to put down, as they have forgotten so much. You will recollect, Mr. Weatherill, that one of my amendments was to set up a contingencies commission to advise the Home Office on contingency plans that it may not have thought about. It is fairly obvious, due to the hurry in this case, that it did not think of the possibility of a prison officers' strike.

Mr. Lyon: Further to my original point of order, Mr. Weatherill. It is obvious that I had not explained my point sufficiently clearly to you. I am not suggesting that you are in confusion. I accept that you are the one person in the Committee who understands where


we are. My difficulty is that I am confined as, I suspect, are most hon. Members. The issue is that these amendments, due to the rush, were not numbered. It is therefore impossible for hon. Members to recognise which amendments have been called. I wonder, therefore, whether it would be possible for you to indicate which have been called by reference to the name of the proposer of the amendment.

The Chairman: I propose to do exactly that. I think that we should proceed on that basis. Before doing so, I should say that, in addition to the amendments I have selected, some Government amendments have been tabled. There are seven amendments to clause 8. I shall ensure that when we reach that point the Committee knows about it. The first amendment to be selected is in the names of the hon. Members for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and for Barking (Miss Richardson).

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I was under the impression, Mr. Weatherill, that you would indicate all the amendments selected. It will not enable us to make a useful contribution to the debate if we get up to move, or prepare for, an amendment that you are not intending to call. It would have been helpful to be told now all the amendments that have been selected rather than for hon. Members to be informed at the time when one of us has to move the amendment.

The Chairman: If it will help the Committee, I should perhaps indicate those amendments I have selected for clause 1. The first amendment is in the names of the hon. Members for Stockport, North, for Ormskirk and for Barking. That is clause 1, page 1, line 7. The second amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport, North, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, together with page 2, line 33. The third amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). That is page 2, line 20. The hon. Member for Stockport, North will perhaps now move the first amendment.

Clause 1

DETENTION OF PRISONERS IN PLACES APPROVED BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move in page 1, line 7, after 'person' insert
'over the age of 16'.
I think that we have been helped regarding clause 1. It might further help if the selection on other clauses could be circulated during the debate on clause 1 so avoiding a similar situation where the information has to be given at the start of the discussion on clause 2.
The purpose of this amendment is to discover what the Government are doing about those who are under 16 and who are affected by the provisions of the Bill. Most of my hon. Friends welcome the Government announcement that they intend to phase out the committing to prison of those under 16. I understand, however, that the phasing out has not yet been completed. It will take place only later in this financial year. For the time being, some people under 16 are still committed to prison while others are held on remand and in borstal institutions. It is unsatisfactory that the Government should be allowing those under 16 to be remanded in this sort of accommodation. I hope that the Minister will say that he will make special provision to ensure that anyone under 16 will not be included in the provisions but will be held in local authority accommodation, which is much more satisfactory than prison, remand or borstal accommodation. Police accommodation is also unsatisfactory for this age group.
This is a probing amendment. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that people under the age of 16 are being considered carefully and that the Home Office is taking steps to ensure that children are held in local authority accommodation.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has raised some important issues which need clarification. So far we have heard only that about 3,500 individuals are incarcerated in police cells. How many are juveniles, and are they being segregated from adult prisoners? Do any special provisions or conditions attach to the holding of juveniles, particularly female juveniles, in police cells and approved places?
We are dealing with significant numbers. We are talking not about people who, under the existing "unruly certificate" procedure, are remanded in custody to prison or local remand centres, but about those who expect to enter a detention centre or borstal. The prison officers' action is preventing the admission of boys to detention centres and of boys and girls to borstals, remand centres and local prisons on remand. We need to know exactly what is happening to them, how many are involved and what it is proposed should happen to them when the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Brittan: It is not possible to give the statistical information sought by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). The position changes a great deal from day to day. It is not possible to give the breakdown for which the hon. Member has asked.
The amendment would prohibit the use of temporary accommodation for those under the relevant age by confining clause 1 to those over the age of 16 years. I cannot advise the Committee to accept the amendment, because it is necessary to preserve a degree of flexibility. We are faced with a crisis and difficulties among offenders of all categories.
A young person who has committed a serious offence might be sentenced to borstal or detention. When considering where such a young person might go, one must take account of age and make the best use of the accommodation available. At present, all young people who have been given sentences are kept in police cells. That is a consequence of the action by the Prison Officers' Association. It is refusing to admit prisoners.
12 midnight
Any flexibility that is granted to the Government by the clause can only be to the good in that we have provision at Frankland and we are considering using military camps. The more accommodation that is available other than in police cells and the more varied that accommodation, the greater the flexibility and the greater the opportunity to take special account of the cases of those who are particularly young and should be considered separately. If they are excluded from the Bill, there is less flexibility and

that means that those youngsters will have to stay in the police cells. No advantage would be served by doing that.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) nor I suggested that we wished to press the amendment. My hon. Friend pointed out quite clearly that it was a probing amendment.
The Minister has failed to satisfy us on any of the issues that concern us. He cannot tell us how many have been involved. I accept that, although I should have thought that he would be briefed. We are dealing with a fairly sensitive group. He has given the commitment to provide the information. We need to know what plans he has to house juveniles and where. He referred to Frankland. Is he seriously proposing that juveniles from the South-East—perhaps young girls—should be carted off to a maximum high security prison at Durham and incarcerated there with adult prisoners?
The hon. and learned Gentleman's other comment consisted of vague words about the need for flexibility. The amendment covers that. My hon. Friend does not particularly want to press it so that the Government would not be able to take the juveniles out of police cells. There is no dispute between us on that. We want to know what the Minister proposes to do. He owes the House and the country an explanation of where juveniles of this kind will be housed. The Government gave a commitment in the White Paper published only two or three weeks ago that these juveniles would no longer be remanded to prison service establishments. He recognises them, therefore, as being a sensitive group. With an emergency Bill of this kind, the Government should involve themselves in some kind of contingency planning for a special, identifiable group.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would it be possible under the clause for a local authority residential home or something like it to be categorised as an approved place, even if it were at the same time being used for another purpose? Would it be possible for five, six or 10 places in such a home to be specified as an approved place for housing people in this age group?

Mr. Frank Hooley: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk). The Government should be a good deal more forthcoming on this issue. Whatever the arguments for suspending all the normal rules for the imprisonment of adults—that is highly controversial in itself, and some hon. Members have already voted against it this evening—the idea that by a sweeping enactment of this kind one can dispense with all the safeguards and rules that apply to children under the age of 16 is not on.
The Minister seemed to indicate that the Government had given little or no thought to the matter. He merely said that the only option was to leave them in the cells. That surely is not so. We could have had an assurance from the Minister that the Government would bring forward some amendment under which it might be possible for places such as those suggested by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) could be designated as places where offenders under the age of 16 could be detained since the ordinary borstal, prison and remand home provision was not available.
The Minister owes it to the House to make a much clearer statement about what the Government intend for dealing with children in this emergency. If the Government have not yet thought about that, he should promise that they will think about it seriously in the next hour and table an appropriate amendment in another place. The House would then be assured that this blanket legislation would not sweep away all rights and consideration for children under the age of 16 simply because of a silly quarrel between the Government and a group of workers about meal breaks.

Mr. Tilley: I wish to reinforce the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). Whatever fine words there may be in the recent publication on young offenders, there is still considerable suspicion and dislike on the Opposition side of the Government's attitude to the problems of young offenders, especially what they said about the short, sharp shock treatment. The lesson to be drawn is that the first reactions of Conservative policy makers on issues affecting young

offenders soon proved to be incorrect. The Government now admit that their short, sharp shock treatment approach has limitations and often has the opposite effect to that originally desired.
In this short debate we have established not that the Minister will not tell us what the Government have decided to do, but that the Government clearly have not thought through what they intend to do, and whether they will make provisions for young offenders. We must continue to make the point that switching adult prisoners from a conventional prison to an Army camp may not be—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I think that my hon. Friend would like the Minister to listen to his speech. Perhaps he should ask the Minister whether he wishes to adjourn for five minutes so that he can finish his conversation.

Mr. Tilley: I am sure that the Minister is getting the gist of my remarks. I should be happy to say it all again in case he missed it. I hoped that the Minister would say that there had been some rough and ready thought by the Government on which possible approved places would not be used for young offenders. I thought that he would say "Of course we shall not send them to Frankland or Army camps staffed by soldiers who have no training in and experience of dealing with young people". I hoped that the Government would try to avoid that course of action wherever possible and say that they would use only the more suitable premises such as local authority homes and hostels. It is disappointing that the Minister has nothing further to say on the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said that this was only a probing amendment. I do not think that anyone would dare to suggest a confrontation knowing that he is more experienced in these matters and would push everything to the limit. I shall not press the matter any further than he has. We have established that the Government need to think more about how they will deal with young people. It is no good saying that they are in the terrible frying pan of police custody, therefore let us have total flexibility in terms of the fire we decided to put them into.
We want more assurance. The Government have not had time to think through the matter. I hope that as a result of this short debate they will think it through. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley said, in another place they may at least be able to give some verbal assurances that it has been thought through and that some of the possible alternative premises that may be used for adults will not, in any circumstances, be used for children.

Mr. Stainton: The remarks that have just been made encapsulate my own thoughts and reactions on this matter. In fact, over the years and not infrequently I have had to make demarches with the Home Office to have young girl constituents under the age of 16 removed from Holloway gaol where they have been incarcerated almost wantonly en route for borstal or some other establishment. Indeed, on one occasion one girl of 15 was closeted, if that is the right word, with none other than Myra Hindley. That was a scandal that was rectified immediately.
I should like to gather from the Minister the theme of the thinking of the Home Office and also receive some assurance about monitoring.

Mr. Brittan: I welcome the fact that this is a probing amendment. It is right that it should be so, because the thoughts that have been expressed in the debate have been entirely in accord with the need for the provision to apply to the younger as well as the older age group. At present, to the extent that there is any problem, police cells are the only place for the youngsters to go.
At the moment, branches of the Prison Officers' Association are admitting detention centre trainees when detention centres are not overcrowded, and borstals are doing the same thing. Under-16s are going from police cells to detention centres and from Crown courts to remand centres and then to borstals. There are delays for a few days, but we hope to keep these arrangements going as long as the action is not escalated.
However, at the same time, one wants to have this provision in case the situation changes, in which case we shall obviously need to make alternative arrangements for youngsters. When we do so, we shall

certainly take into account the anxieties the Committee has understandably expressed about the need for such accommodation to be suitable and separate.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has not answered my simple question. Is it possible under this clause for a local authority home or for part of such an establishment to be specified as an approved place? If that is possible, what are the planning considerations, and is there scope for objection by local residents? Is it possible for a local authority establishment to be designated as an approved place? Must this be done by agreement with the local authority, and what are the planning implications?

Mr. Brittan: The answer is that it is possible. We are not planning to do so, although it could be designated as an approved place, and if the Secretary of State removed people to such a place it would be lawful under the provisions of the Bill. But the fact that it is designated as an approved place, and it is lawful to remove people to it does not give the Secretary of State the right to move people to it, because they would be local authority places and the local authority would have control over them. Therefore, an agreement would have to be reached that they be available for that purpose before they could be used.
However, for the purposes of this Bill, the Secretary of State has the power in any event to designate them, so that if they become available by whatever means the transfer of people to them would be lawful.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: The Minister has not answered any of the legitimate and justifiable questions that have been put to him. The Minister is muttering. He is telling me that he does not have the information. That is clear to all of us. But it is also clear that he has a responsibility to come to the House with the information.
It is the Minister who is asking for the powers, not us. If he wants the House to give him the powers, he must show how they will be used.—[Interruption.] The Minister knows his way to the Dispatch Box if he wishes to intervene.


12.15 am
Justifiable and legitimate anxieties have been expressed from both sides of the Committee. Under pressure, the Minister has obtained more information from the Home Office. He has now told us what has been happening so far—to a certain extent. But that is not enough. We need to know the Government's thinking about the accommodation for 14 or 16-year-old boys and girls.
The Minister did not take up the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) of ruling out those institutions that the Government will not use. Perhaps there are good reasons why he should not do so, but he has not yet given any indication of the sort of facilities in which he proposes to accommodate juveniles. Nor has he said whether they will be accommodated within a locality where their relatives can visit them easily.
There are many points on which the Committee has a right to information and on which the Minister has been unusually unforthcoming. if that is because the Government have not thought out their policy, it is a condemnation of them for bringing forward the Bill in such a hurried fashion. The Minister cannot trample over these matters and expect hon. Members not to be concerned and not to want answers to these questions. If he does not have the answers tonight, he should give an assurance that he will report to us fully on what the Government propose to do, and give regular reports to us on what the Government have done.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Would the Minister reflect on two points arising from his answer to my question? He said that in certain circumstances it would be possible for an agreement to be reached whereby a local authority home could be used as approved accommodation. If that happens, will there be planning implications from change of use, and who will be responsible for the custody of offenders? Could that person be a local authority employee, and would that employee automatically have the powers of constable? There is no scope for flexibility in the clause. If a local authority home is used as approved

accommodation for offenders, someone, who would automatically have the powers of constable, must be appointed by the Home Secretary to be responsible for the offenders.

Mr. Brittan: rose—

The Chairman: Order. Would it not be convenient to hear all the speeches before the Minister replies?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall reply to the debate, and I had intended to comment on the lack of satisfactory answers from the Minister. But if the Minister wishes to speak, it is perhaps fair to let him have the opportunity to make his final remarks before I reply.

Mr. Clement Freud: I have listened with care to the debate and I am amazed by the length to which it has been allowed to drag. This is a debate that the Minister should have been able to dispose of in a few minutes.
This is not a party political point. The entire Committee is concerned about the fate of 14 and 15-year-old boys and girls. The sort of information that the Committee is seeking is, first, what institutions will these offenders not be sent to; secondly, what is the maximum distance to which they will be sent; and, thirdly, will the Minister assure us that the next-of-kin will be informed as a matter of urgency when any movement of young offenders is necessitated by events? That is what the hon. Members want to know, and I hope that the Minister will now tell us.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I apologise to the Committee for missing the first few minutes of this debate, but I have listened attentively to the points that have been raised and to the Minister's reply. I should like to take up one of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk).
I take the Minister's comment that for the moment the problem has not arisen because of the way in which the decanting is taking place. However, will he give us an assurance that if any problems arise an assurance that if any problems arise in this respect he will inform the House of Commons? Right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about the matter. The decanting is working at present, but the moment that it is not working properly


we should like to be informed, because it is too late to hear about it a week or two later. I think that we would be satisfied with that, whether the information is given to the Select Committee or in an answer to a parliamentary question, or, in some other way, and our minds would be set at rest.

Mr. Brittan: I ant grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am very happy to assure him. I described the arrangements operating at present very specifically, even naming the establishments. I can certainly happily assure the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that if a change is necessitated, I shall arrange for the House of Commons to be informed of that in one way or another.
With regard to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), the position is that it is the Home Secretary who has the power to appoint anyone as an officer responsible for the custody of persons detained in an approved place, and he can appoint staff if he so wishes.
Planning is an aspect of the matter which one would need to consider before making a designation. But, as I have said, this is hypothetical because what my hon. Friend has suggested is not something that we are envisaging doing.

Mr. Hooley: I should like to pursue a feature of the Minister's earlier remarks that I found curious. He seemed to suggest that, if the Home Secretary wished to designate some place which was under the control and direction of a local authority, he would require the explicit consent of the local authority. As I read the Bill, it gives an unqualified power to the Secretary of State to designate a place—full stop.
If what is intended, or what will be the law under the Bill, is that a local authority will have power to say to the Secretary of State "We are sorry, but we are not willing that this place shall be so designated. whether for young people or older people", we ought to have some definite clarification that this will be so. It seems to me that the Minister is putting an interpretation on the Bill which the words do not bear and which, as a layman, I certainly would not have recognised.
The Minister will be well aware that there is considerable tension now between local authorities and the Government over a wide range of matters. I should be interested to know whether the Minister is now suggesting that, in addition to all the other quarrels that exist between local authorities and the Government on a wide range of matters, we could possibly be landed with further quarrels in which the Secretary of State wished to designate a certain place as a proper place, for example, to which to send boys and girls while this emergency existed, and the local authority could say quite firmly "We are very sorry but we shall not put up with them."
That is what the Minister has suggested, although he may not have intended to suggest it.

Mr. Brittan: Perhaps I may assist the hon. Gentleman; it may save time. I had thought that in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) I made it clear that there was no such intention whatsoever and that the problem that the hon. Gentleman was envisaging would not arise because the Government have no intention of doing what he was suggesting.

Mr. Hooley: I am sorry. The Minister says that there is no intention, but we do not know how this quarrel will escalate.

Mr. Brittan: There is no quarrel.

Mr. Hooley: The Home Office may find that there is virtually no option, when dealing with boys and girls, but to say that they must go to residential homes, or whatever, which are under the control of the local authority. We should be absolutely clear whether in that case the local authority would have the power to say to the Home Secretary "We are sorry, but we are not prepared to agree to this arrangement." If so, the clause should be drafted to make it clear that local authorities have that power.

Mr. Tilley: Perhaps I may again amplify the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. Heeley (Mr. Hooley). In talking about local authority homes, it seems to be assumed that somewhere there are large numbers


places, such as local authority hostels, children's homes and so on, where there are vacancies. My experience as a councillor in London and as a Member of Parliament is that there are few vacancies in local authority homes. That is because of the pressure of need and because the Government cuts have made it impossible to make provision where the accommodation is less than the need.
If there is not a great deal of local authority accommodation that would be suitable for young people, and if the only other places are Army camps, why should it not be assumed that the Government are saying that they are taking powers to put young offenders into Army camps because they feel that that is all that they will be able to do?
If the Government will not rule out the use of Army camps for young offenders, and therefore control by soldiers to a degree, will the Minister mention the institutions to which the provision could apply which would be more suitable than Army camps and in which there are likely to be a reasonable number of spare places? If the hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to do that, why should we not assume that if pushed the Government will use Army camps for young people? As the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said, the camps may be a long way from their homes and social environments. Is there anything that the Minister has not told us? Are we talking about Army camps or nothing?

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When the debate started, some of my hon. Friends felt that they had had little time to prepare amendments. It seems that the Minister has had little time to prepare his replies. His reply to the debate has been completely unsatisfactory. It is a mark of that that he has had to be pressed so many times by hon. Members on both sides to give a clearer answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) asked why the amendment was only probing. The reason is that I had difficulty in drafting it so that it would ensure that young people were kept neither in police cells nor in the new places that have been

set up. I feel tempted to table an amendment on Report to cover that issue unless the Minister can provide clear assurances to cover our arguments.
The Government have said that they will not commit those under 16 years of age to prisons in future. Why cannot they say that they will bring that provision forward so that no young people will be committed to prison? They say that young people are being moved satisfactorily from police cells to other institutions. It seems reasonable that the Minister should give an assurance that if that system breaks down he will report to the House and tell it what will happen to the young people concerned. Surely he should indicate which of the approved places that have been established will, in his view, be unsuitable. Does he consider that Army camps will be perfectly suitable for young people? The Committee has a right to this information. If we do not get it now or when we debate whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, there will be a strong temptation to try to draft an amendment that will be suitable for selection on Report.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, at end insert:
'Arrangements shall be made for any such "approved place" to be inspected within 7 days of its coming into use by Prison visitors'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the amendment in clause 2, page 2, line 33, at end insert:
(c) Magistrates shall take all necessary steps to satisfy themselves as to the health and safety of any person remanded to an approved place in custody by them'.

Mr. Bennett: I tried to discuss the previous amendment briefly so that I should not detain the Committee. Perhaps that was a mistake. We received such a poor reply from the Minister that my hon. Friends wish to pursue the matter further. Again, I hope that if I am brief, we shall receive a satisfactory reply. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman has learnt that if we do not receive a satisfactory reply there will be a temptation to go on pressing this issue.
Both amendments seek to discover what system will be applied to ensure that the approved places are satisfactory, that prisoners have some means of voicing complaints and that the normal means of supervising prisons and ensuring that they conform to reasonable standards are exercised. The Minister may say that the prison rules will apply to such institutions, and that the normal procedures will exist for those prisoners who wish to make complaints and for ensuring that a prison lives up to certain standards. However, I should like a firm assurance.
The amendments approach the issue in two ways. First, it is suggested that any approved place should have a set of prison visitors appointed within seven days. Those visitors will then be able to exercise the normal duties of prison visitors. The alternative approach is to suggest that, if magistrates remand people to approved places, they will have a duty to inspect such places and to see that the welfare, safety and health of prisoners are maintained. I hope that the Minister can tell us what provisions he has in mind to ensure that approved places reach a basic minimum standard and to ensure that prisoners have the basic right to make complaints about the way in which they are being looked after.

Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has explained that he wishes to ensure that the approved places are of the same standard as those found in ordinary prisons. They are bound to be of a lower standard. During the debate on the money resolution, the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) made a point that received no reply. I imply no criticism, because the chopper came down in the middle of the Minister's speech. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman would have answered that point.
The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge pointed out that the money resolution states that the costs involved are to come out of the Vote of the prison department. There is to be no additional financial provision. The costs have been estimated at about £10 million. Such money is to come out of a sum that has already been fixed for the operation of prisons. Where will it come

from? Does it mean that prisoners will get less food? Will the heating in prisons be reduced in winter? Will the number of occupants in prisons be increased? Will the cells, which hold two prisoners although they were designed for one, now have three prisoners in them? Will those cells that have three prisoners in them now have four? We have not had an answer.
The conclusion that must inevitably be drawn is that, if one gets a bit more liquid from the pint pot, that liquid must be thinner. Will the prison officers have poorer conditions? Where will the Minister get the money to pay for the Bill? We must conclude that these approved places cannot be places in which standards are equivalent to those in other prison accommodation.
My hon. Friend is right to put forward this amendment. I do not see how the Minister can give us the assurances we require while being consistent with the statement in the financial memorandum that the money will come out of the present prison budget.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in this amendment, and in his intention to probe what is in the Government's mind. I want to know what they propose for the rules that will govern these new prison places.
The Minister of State will accept that there are certain basic minimum standards which are important and which should be maintained at all times, however exceptional the circumstances. We do not expect him tonight to define exactly the new rules for the approved places, but we need to know the Government's thinking. Many of the current prison rules cover some extremely important and sensitive issues.
For example, we need to know what the Government propose to do to enact something similar to the present rule No. 17 dealing with the medical needs of those in the new approved places. We need to know whether there will be new rules. This clause gives the Secretary of State power to suspend or modify prison rules. If he intends to exercise that power and leave a caucus of some basic minimum standards, we need to know by what means prisoners will be given that information. We need to know what action


will be taken and what rules will govern any special illnesses or any special conditions relating to prisoners. What procedures will be established for notifying the next-of-kin of a prisoner's illness or death? There will be deaths and there will be illnesses in the new approved places. Presumably also there will be some form of discipline imposed. The form of discipline that is imposed must be backed up by rules, regulations and standing orders. What are they?
My hon. Friends who are familiar with prison rules, and more particularly with the prison standing orders, will know that they form a formidable volume. Prison standing orders are of enormous length and complexity. I do not know why that should be so, but for some reason the prison department seems to find it necessary to circulate new instructions and standing orders almost by the day, and certainly by the week.
If that is necessary in the existing system, something akin to it will be necessary in the new system. Someone must lay down the rules, someone must tell the prisoners, and someone must ensure that the rules are abided by. We want to know the rules on the important matters—on medicine, information to prisoners, special illnesses and conditions, notification to next-of-kin of illness and death, discipline, complaints procedures, whether prisoners will have the right to petition the Secretary of State, what powers they will have in terms of writing letters or visiting, and a whole series of other measures that we regard as basic. These must be retained in any circumstances.
This Government claim to be the Government of law and order. Therefore, they will be all the more concerned to ensure that the rules and regulations are maintained. What are those rules and regulations?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In considering the amendment, it would be helpful to know what kind of places the Government have in mind. If the dispute continues for a long period, quite a number of approved places will be required. Does the clause in any way override normal planning considerations? What kind of animal is an approved place under planning law? If an Army camp, holiday camp or an

empty country house—and the Socialists have plenty of wealthy friends with empty houses—is used as an approved place, will they require the same application and consideration as the establishment of a prison?

Mr. Hooley: The amendment puts forward a modest and reasonable suggestion. It does not say that the Home Secretary may not designate a place until it has been checked, examined and inspected to the nth degree to make sure that it complies with all reasonable conditions. It simply suggests that, once a place has been designated, there should be an independent inspection within a few days to make sure that there are no outrageous defects that would offend the House of Commons and the public.
The Government have made it clear in subsection (4) that they want the rules relating to prisons to apply fully to places designated for the emergency purpose. That is reasonable. Unfortunately, in subsection (5) they have put in the dangerous and sweeping phrase,
only so far as is practicable in the circumstances".
That is a let-out for the Home Secretary to designate almost any establishment for the emergency purpose. If the kitchens are insufficient to cope with the numbers, he can say that he is sorry but that, according to the law, he has to go only as far as practicable in the circumstances. If there is no provision for exercise or for people to get out of the huts and if complaints are made, he can again invoke subsection (5). That phrase is a let-out. The Home Secretary can designate camps that may be severely lacking in important amenities. It is an escape phrase.
Some of us voted against the emergency arrangements, but if they are accepted some of the camps designated will be lacking certain amenities expected in a modern prison in relation to air, space, light, cooking facilities and even health and medical facilities, which are of great importance. If we are to suspend all the rules because of a silly quarrel over a meal break, there will inevitably be shortcomings in the camps designated.
The safeguard proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) is that there should be an independent inspection of the new institutions to make sure that the basic amenities


are adequate. If there are serious and justified complaints by prisoners treated in this arbitrary and high-handed fashion, at least they would then be attended to. It seems that that proposition is eminently reasonable and fair and ought to be accepted by the Government. If it is not accepted by them, that sweeping phrase,
so far as is practicable
will give the Home Secretary formidable powers which no one will be able to call into question—certainly not the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to designate whatever he likes, whatever kind of accommodation happens to be available. No doubt, if there are complaints, he will say "This is temporary. We have no intention of its going on for more than a fortnight or so. You are making a lot of fuss about nothing and I am not prepared to do anything about it."
12.45 am
All that my hon. Friend is asking is that there shall be some form of independent surveillance over these arrangements so that some more or less independent body can report, publicly I hope, to say that these temporary prisons at least satisfy certain civilised standards. I hope that if we do not get a satisfactory reply my hon. Friends will press the amendment to a Division.

Miss Jo Richardson: I add my support to what I consider to be two modest amendments, whether they are both accepted or regarded as alternatives. It would be strange if the Government did not accept them. If they did not do so, they would open themselves to the criticism that there was too much secrecy about these places.
In addition to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) about provision for medical treatment and such places being open to inspection, there is the further point that the people in these approved places will be allowed visitors. We know that visitors, wives and spouses of prisoners, for example, see and hear the worst side of the situation. If the prison authorities can assure the prisoners and their families that there has been an inspection by official prison visitors or magistrates, and the health and safety aspects approved, that would help to allay suspicions.
This proposal is a matter of the utmost simplicity and could not do anyone any harm or damage. It ought to be something which the Minister can accept automatically. If he does not do so, I hope that he will tell us why. The suggestion would not cost anything. Its adoption would be a sign of the openness and the good intentions of the Government in putting forward the Bill. It would also give some reassurance to the families of those who will be sent to such places.

Mr. Cryer: The amendment was moved in modest terms by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and I support it on the general basis of protection in relation to the duties that the Home Secretary is to be given.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked what sort of places we were dealing with. We are dealing not with examples that the Minister can cite, but with the provisions of the Bill. When it has been rushed through Parliament, it will become legislation and the Minister will be able to do as he likes. The Bill says that he may. It says that he may designate any place as a prison. There is no question of our having any examples culled from the Minister's jaded memory. We are dealing with the words in the Bill and they give unfettered, unqualified, utter and absolute power for the Home Secretary to designate any place a prison. We say that it needs a slight qualification. We do not like the legislation. We want nothing to do with it. But we have it, and we are in the business of trying to improve it.
We do not like the Home Office either. Its reputation throughout its history has not been one of untainted honesty. Special control units were set up at Wakefield in breach of prison rules and without the authority of the House. There is also the subject of telephone tapping which is, to say the least, a little shrouded.
It may be that the Home Secretary protection alliance will say that everything is superb. But there is a credibility gap around the Home Office and those who run it. In order to counter our cynical view that those who run that gigantic empire perhaps feel that they run the whole show, with Ministers, occupying positions intermittently, being fed little


nuggets of information and legislation which the House will approve, the Government should show that they are human and concerned by accepting the amendment.
The Home Secretary may be under considerable pressure. People will be coming to have warrants signed for telephone tapping. He deals with those personally and we are assured that he deals with them carefully and always has the matter under consideration. In addition, the prison officers' dispute will be ebbing and flowing and, in order that he is not bounced into approving unsuitable premises, we ask for an additional modest safeguard.
I say "modest" because we know what happens to prison visitors who speak out of turn: they are sacked. We are not talking about people who are regarded as anti-establishment creatures hunting out the worst aspects of prisons. We are talking about those who are, generally, part of the establishment and do a good job. They are not noted for their militancy. We are not asking for anything that the Minister could say was outlandish or unreasonable.
By the Minister's own definition, the people concerned are reasonable people. We simply want them to be able to go to the premises, which the Minister can define. He has no other check. Once the matter leaves the House the Secretary of State can say "I have done what Parliament authorised me to do." We are authorising him mightily, and all that we are asking is that there should be arrangements for approved places to be inspected within seven days of their coming into use.
The amendment is modest. We do not even seek to give any right of veto. We say that in this way the Secretary of State will have at the back of his mind that his decision will be subject to an element of scrutiny; it is no longer under our scrutiny. I do not believe that a degree of examination is much to ask.
Those of us who do not view the Home Office as having had the most lavishly libertarian record over the past few years ask the Home Secretary to ensure that in a highly anti-libertarian Bill there is a gesture towards a continuing element of scrutiny. It will not constitute a condition

and it will not stop the Secretary of State, but it will enable him to have in mind these decent people, exercising their responsibilities for the good of their standards of humanity and civilisation. That sounds a grandiose aim. I am speaking of a standard of decency based on their own, relevant experience. "Scrutinise" is too strong a word to use, as the people in question will have no veto. We want them to keep a friendly eye on the Home Secretary. It must be friendly, because if it is not he can sack them. Therefore, it is bound to be a co-operative eye.
This is redolent of the helpful way in which my hon. Friend has put forward the amendment. I look forward with interest to learning whether the Minister shares our modest and moderate view.

Mr. Stainton: I have found myself at a distinct disadvantage in trying to follow your provisional list of amendments, Mr. Weatherill. Incidentally, I presume that by now it should be definitive, and the word "provisional" should have been deleted officially.
I almost feel like reciting in full the amendment to which I wish to speak, but perhaps I may describe it as the prison visitors amendment. I have sympathy with the amendment and with the points that have been made about it. I should not have thought it particularly offensive to the Home Office.
Whenever I visit prison establishments—I have a large borstal in my constituency—my general impression is that prison visitors are, lamentably, fairly toothless. However, they have a role to play. The atmosphere between them, the governor and the deputy governors is usually very good.
It is curious that the amendment has come to the Committee as it has, because I spent between 6 pm and 6.30 pm today in the Public Bill Office putting down 13 amendments, none of which has seen the light of day. I am sure that none of them was out of order in parliamentary terms. However, I do not intend to press that matter. The discretion lies with the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chairman of this Committee—

1 am

Mr. Hooley: There is surely no discretion not to publish amendments put


down by an hon. Member. There is a right not to select, which all hon. Members accept, but surely no discretion not to publish and not to include amendments on the list.

Mr. Stainton: I do not intend to pursue the point. I am content to accept the position as we go along. By this process, I am able to point out to the Chairman what I have done and ask for some latitude when we come to "clause stand part". I had approached this problem without seeing the list of amendments that appeared while I was visiting the Public Bill Office and intended to add after
approved place' means a place for the time being so approved
the words
and which has been so designated for seven clear days before use by publication in the London Gazette.
My purpose was to encompass not only the safety and well-being of the prisoners but also the question of the public's concern generally. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) may find next week that he has a new type of prison on his doorstep. One would like seven days' notice of such an event. If there could be some publication in advance in, say, the London Gazette, the House of Commons and the country would be alerted. The worst of one's fears, both in terms of the comfort and safety of the prisoners and, on the other side of the coin, the well-being of the community at large, could be clarified and, I hope, safeguards provided. My amendment did not make it, but I hope that I can leave my thoughts, now made orally, with the Minister.

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. In the exchanges that took place during the speech of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) a point of importance regarding our procedures arose. We have a photocopied Notice Paper that contains some amendments that have been selected and some that have not been selected. It is the practice for all amendments that have been submitted and that are in order to be published. It transpires that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge went to a lot of trouble—his speeches show how much close attention he has paid to the Bill—to put down

a lot of amendments. None of them has been selected. I make no complaint about that; it is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Chair. Can you tell us. Mr. Weatherill, why none has been published?

The Chairman: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) was present in the Chamber when this point was raised. Since one could not be certain at what time the Committee stage would start, I had to make a decision to have a preliminary selection of amendments. Until that time, we circulated the amendments. Afterwards, the amendments were not circulated. It was purely for the convenience of hon. Members that I produced the preliminary selection at what I thought would be a convenient time for hon. Members to have an opportunity to scrutinise the amendments before the Committee stage.

Mr. Freud: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I wonder whether you can assure the Committee that there will not be any amendments that have not been published but have been selected.

The Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman make that point again? I did not quite get it.

Mr. Freud: You explained, Mr. Weatherill, that certain amendments were not published. I wondered whether any of the amendments that had not been published had been selected. The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge has explained that he spent a lot of time tabling amendments that have not seen the light of day. The Committee is concerned that there may be amendments that have not seen the light of day that will suddenly be called.

The Chairman: I dealt with that matter earlier. I assure the Committee that I considered that all the amendments which I selected were appropriate for debate.

Miss Richardson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I do not follow what you are saying. I was not in the Committee when you explained earlier. I understood from the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) that he was in the Public Bill Office between


6 pm and 6.30 pm. You, Mr. Weatherill, said that there must be a cutoff point at some stage because you had to make your selection. Since we did not finish the Second Reading debate until a few minutes before 10 o'clock, the hon. Member has a case for having his amendments published, although not selected. Would you explain why the amendments have not been published?

The Chairman: There is always a difficulty when we take a Bill through all its stages in one day. We circulated as many amendments as possible. It took more than an hour to scrutinise all the amendments and therefore the provisional list was not circulated until just before the end of the Second Reading. Perhaps that is why the amendments in question were not printed.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I understand the problem of a cut-off point and the difficulties involved in trying to push a Bill through in one day. However, should one not distinguish between selection and publication? At one stage you made a selection and, because of the time factor, you said that you could not consider anything beyond that for selection. We all accept that. However, Report stage is to come.
Some of those amendments might be worthy of consideration on Report, even though you were compelled by time not to select them for Committee. It is wrong that the Committee should be deprived of knowledge which the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge has discovered in his researches. Even at this late hour, we should be given a sight of the hon. Member's amendments in case he or other hon. Members wish to move or discuss them on Report.

The Chairman: I dealt with that matter earlier. It would be time wasting to go over the same points of order just because some hon. Members were not present earlier. I have dealt with the point of order. Each manuscript that has been submitted by any hon. Member was seen by me both before and after the cut-off point.

Mr. Stainton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I was reasonably satisfied with the assistance which I received

from the Table Office. The Chair has asked for this trouble and difficulty. After spending much time on the amendments, nobody could tell me what had happened to my documents. They are lost and gone. I begin to feel keenly about the issue now. I am not prepared to accept that my amendments were out of order unless someone demonstrates that to me.
I hesitated to ventilate this point previously, but there is the important issue of the cut-off point. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) made the point that the strict cut-off time is the finalisation of Second Reading, and that it is incorrect to accept amendments previously. One understands that the machinery has to be got under way, but I have extended the observations of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. We are not working on the basis of a document that holds water in parliamentary legal terms. This document is headed "Provisional selection of amendments", and the Chair cannot get by on that. This is the selection of amendments or it is nothing.

The Chairman: It is customary to put out a selection that is provisional. That simply means that if other amendments are received subsequently they can be incorporated if selected. The difficulty we were in tonight—I explained this earlier—was that we could not be certain at what time the Second Reading would end. It was therefore necessary to take a decision to make a selection at a certain point in the evening or the selection would not have been ready for the Committee stage. I took that decision and made the selection, and I have seen all the manuscript amendments, both before that cut-off point and after it.

Mr. Cryer: I was here earlier, Mr. Weatherill, and I do not think that you touched in detail on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). He said that it was the practice of the House of Commons to table a resolution allowing earlier consideration of amendments and selection before the end of the Second Reading. He said that no such resolution had been tabled. I wonder why the House troubles to put down a resolution to allow in these circumstances consideration of amendments to be undertaken


when the Bill has been presented on those occasions when the whole procedure can be thrown to the winds. We do not have to have a resolution. Why have we wasted time on previous occasions tabling resolutions? Is the explanation that the Government have been careless on this occasion and have forgotten and that the point has been ignored? If that is so, we ought to adjourn the proceedings until we can remedy the position and get the proper resolution tabled. This is not the fault of hon. Members. The blame is with the Government for not having tabled the proper resolution.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I do not want to get involved in this wrangle; I want to talk about the Bill. There are fundamental and important points to be debated. Nevertheless, I believe that an important new principle is being established here and that it may establish an important new precedent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said that it was the convention that amendments could not be tabled until the end of Second Reading. You pointed out, Mr. Weatherill, that there have been precedents for this. The Table Office has accepted amendments from myself and my hon. Friends throughout the day on that basis. The Table Office told me that I could table amendments up to the end of Second Reading and, indeed, during the Division on Second Reading. I did not know, the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) did not know, in fact no one knew, that a new principle was being established—understandably in the light of the difficulties with which you were confronted, Mr. Weatherill. Because of the position in which the Government have placed you, it seems that you are exercising a cut-off point. In doing that, you are setting a precedent that will be followed on other occasions, one of which the Committee is unaware and has not had the opportunity to discuss or determine. In those circumstances, you should again consider what has happened, and whether it was right to prohibit any further consideration of amendments tabled up to the end of Second Reading.

The Chairman: We have been in this position before. I was not creating any

precedents. I was following previous precedents when we have had to take a Committee stage on the same day as Second Reading. There was nothing new in what I did.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. You have replied to the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and Nottingham, West (Mr. English), but, with respect, you have not replied to the point that I raised about the difference between selection and publication. You said that you dealt with it when I was not in the Chamber, but you did not and you are not dealing with it now. I shall reiterate my point. My hon. Friends are not happy about your making a cut-off point before the time of Second Reading. I am making a quite different point. You applied a cut-off point and said that beyond that time you would not consider any amendments for selection. I accept that—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing a point that I did not make. I said that, for the convenience of hon. Members, as we did not know when Second Reading would be completed, I had made a provisional selection. It was provisional so that I was open to receive manuscript amendments which came to me after that time if Second Reading lasted longer than expected—as it did—so that I could consider the additional amendments and incorporate them if they were correct for incorporation and in order. That is exactly what I did.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. That is all right. I was about to say that. You made your provisional selection with a fall-back position that you could select further amendments. I am not querying that. There came a point at which provisionally you said that you would not select any further amendments. I wish to know on what authority you decided that amendments that you did not select should not be published. That is my point, and it is different from that of my hon Friends. I have been a Member of the House a long time. I cannot recall an occasion when bona fide amendments submitted were not published, regardless of whether they were selected. The whole


point of a selection list is to show that of all the amendments that have been tabled the following have been selected and that, ipso facto, the remainder have not been selected.
I am not asking why you did not select the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge. I am asking why they were not published. You have not answered that question at any stage during the proceedings.

The Chairman: I shall answer that point now. In an ordinary Committee stage, if a manuscript amendment is accepted, it is not published. Today we have had a whole series of manuscript amendments. It was not possible to publish them in the time available. Up to a certain hour they were typed and circulated. After that time it was not possible to do that. I think that it would be right if we proceeded with the amendment that we are discussing.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. My hon. Friend is saying that it was not possible to publish.

Mr. Mikardo: Publish them now.

Mr. Cryer: That means that it was not possible to get them typed and photocopied. I cannot believe that the facilities of the House of Commons stop at 6 o'clock in respect of typing and photocopying. Indeed, that is one of the things that we are very good at—producing reams of photocopied material. I should have thought that even now facilities were available in the building for publishing—that is, typing and photocopying—50 or 100 copies of all the manuscript amendments that have been submitted and which by decision have not been published.
The point of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) said is that a Report stage is to come later. It may well be that amendments which have not been dealt with in Committee can be submitted on Report. But we are not in a position to make a judgment on whether we would want to add our names. If 30 or 40 names were added to an amendment, that would clearly give it strength with regard to selecion. That is the normal procedure.
By not typing and duplicating the manuscript amendments that have been submitted, hon. Members are, in effect, being denied the right of assessing their judgment for a later stage of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. If it is not possible for the amendments to be handed around in duplicated form, where is it posible for hon. Members to consult those that have been submitted so that they can at least look through them and consider the points that they contain?

The Chairman: That is a perfectly reasonable request. Manuscript amendments will be placed in the Table Office, and, if hon. Members wish to consult them, that is where they will be found. Let us now proceed with the Committee stage.

Mr. Tilley: I was about to make two final points which I should like the Minister to answer. I believe that I am the last Member to speak before the Minister replies.
I hope that the Minister will give us some more examples of what establishments he has in mind in terms of these instant gaols that he will be creating. We have tried to guess and second-guess him with talk of local authority children's homes, holiday camps and so on. But apart from Army camps and Frank-land, which is clearly something quite separate, we have had no indication or examples of what sort of other buildings are available and which he thinks would be suitable.
We are giving a wide discretion to the Home Secretary in this clause and we are right to ask for some examples, because, in view of the omniscience of the Home Office and how much work it does, it must have a contingency list of establishments. I am sure that the Home Office will not wait until the Bill is passed tonight before looking at this. It must have some contingency lists. It must have lists of specific places. Even though we do not expect all of them to be published at this time of night, we are right to ask that some examples of types of buildings be given, for otherwise we shall waste a lot of time trying to speculate on the rules, regulations and protection that there should be in regard to the use of buildings about which we know nothing.
I hope that the Minister can give concrete examples of the sort of establishments, other than Army camps, that he has in mind.
In his reply, the Minister said—the Secretary of State made the same point earlier—that he deeply regretted the degree to which the Bill gave executive discretion over the judiciary. He made a valid constitutional point, and I do not in any way impugn his sincerity. He said that he regretted the departure from the separation of powers which is such a vital part of the British constitution.
These amendments allow the Government to redress that shift of the checks and balances, because they give them two choices. The first choice is to give magistrates who have or will have some of their powers removed extra powers over the premises in which people will be imprisoned. That is a reasonable redress in the shift of balance, and it is relevant because it will be important for the magistrates in deciding whether to continue to remand in custody prisoners whom they do not see. Therefore, the amendment would have the benefit of giving magistrates the power not only to supervise the premises in terms of general suitability, but to judge the suitability of the premises in relation to each individual prisoner. That would be advantageous to the Government and it would meet their fears about the undue tampering with the separation of powers.
The other choice that is given is the suggestion that prison visitors should be involved. Let us be clear about the role of prison visitors and about what the "gospel according to May", as we must now call it, says about them. The May report states:
We think the Boards are vital institutions which, although their work is little known and appreciated, are important parts of the prison system. Their chief role is to act as agents of local accountability and control over the good management of institutions. They should, therefore, be well informed and acute but friendly watchdogs of the public interest.
I leave Mr. Justice May to explain what he means by "friendly watchdogs". The report continues:
Whilst formally their powers are limited to certain disciplinary and control functions, the potential for their activity is substantial, if not uniformly exploited by them. We think the recent growth in interest in their functions in England and Wales is entirely healthy, and we

think the same appropriate elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Attempts to widen their background should obviously continue, and further development of their training and collective conscience would seem sensible.
The Government have said many times that they accept the broad thrust of the recommendations of the May committee. It calls for prison visitors to be given an expanded role. We shall now have a new set of instant prisons where prison visitors will have no role. It seems reasonable to suggest that by accepting the first of these amendments the Government could not only meet the aspirations of May with regard to prison visitors by giving them a bigger role, but could add a check to the increased executive discretion that the Minister has said, and the Committee agrees, is the most worrying aspect of of the Bill.

Mr. Brittan: I deal first with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who asked about the relationship between these provisions and planning law. Nothing in these provisions alters existing planning law in any way. To the extent that planning permission is required, it continues to be required, and the Bill does not alter that at all.
I was asked about the kind of places that my right hon. Friend has in mind to designate. At present, my right hon. Friend has in mind designating Frank-land and possibly, if necessary, military camps. There are no other places that my right hon. Friend has in mind at present.

Mr. Mikardo: Windsor Safari Park?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Member is not doing himself justice—but I suppose that that was too much to expect.
The fact is that my right hon. Friend has no intention at present of designating anywhere else; but, of course, the power exists.
I turn to the subject of the prison rules, which is a matter of some importance. The Bill clearly provides that the prison rules apply to places which are designated except and to the extent that the Secretary of State orders that they should not apply.

Mr. Cryer: Ah.

Mr. Brittan: If the Committee will bear with me, I shall try to explain.
The position is as a number of hon. Members have pointed out. There are a number of detailed provisions in the prison rules which it may not be appropriate or possible to apply to temporary accommodation. There is absolutely no question about that. Existing rules will apply as far as possible, especially as regards channels of complaint, medical treatment, correspondence, notifications, and so on. The governors and administrative staff will be familiar with the rules and will see that prisoners are informed of any modifications. If modifications have to be made, I assure the Committee that the House of Commons will similarly be informed. That is the position concerning the prison rules.
I now turn to the main thrust of the debate, which is in accordance with these amendments. I deal with the second amendment first, which proposes that magistrates should
take all necessary steps to satisfy themselves as to the health and safety of any person remanded to an approved place in custody by them.
The difficulty of that suggestion is that the courts will not be remanding people to temporary accommodation direct. The courts will simply be making a remand and then it will be for the Secretary of State, in accordance with the situation that operates at present, either to get them into permanent accommodation, if that is available, or, and only as a second best, to put them into temporary accommodation.
The first amendment would require the temporary accommodation to be inspected

Division No. 476]
AYES
[1.36 a.m.


Beith, A. J.
Hooley, Frank
Soley, Clive

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Whitehead, Phillip

Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKelvey, William


Davidson, Arthur
Mikardo, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

English, Michael
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Bob Cryer and

Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Jo
Mr. John Tilley

Freud, Clement
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

NOES


Alexander, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Budgen, Nick

Ancram, Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Butcher, John

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Braine, Sir Bernard
Carlisle Kenneth (Lincoln)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bright, Graham
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Brinton, Tim
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Berry, Hon Anthony
Brittan, Leon
Cope, John

Best, Keith
Brooke, Hon Peter
Costain, Sir Albert

Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Dorrell, Stephen

Blackburn, John
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Dover, Denshore

by a board of visitors. I am very sympathetic to the thought behind this amendment. Arrangements are in hand for just such a board to be appointed for Frank-land. We hope that the members of that board will visit Frankland during the next few days to carry out the purpose that a board of visitors normally carries out. If other accommodation is required and designated, it is our intention that similar arrangements should be made for the appointment of boards of visitors for such other accommodation that is designated.

That meets the substance of the requirement that is proposed by those putting forward the amendment. However, I ask the Committee not to impose a requirement of that kind by means of a legislative requirement. I know that the Committee will accept that my right hon. Friend is following the policy that I have described to the best of his ability. However, there must be an element of flexibility. He will do what he can to follow the policy that I have described. It is his firm intention to do so in respect of Frankland and the other places. None the less, the full provision for boards of visitors may not be appropriate in circumstances that we cannot foresee.

I have no doubt that the issue will be coming before the House of Commons with considerable regularity. I hope that the Committee will feel that I have accepted the spirit of the amendment and that it is not necessary for it to be set out in precise legislative form.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 16, Noes 113.

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Marlow, Tony
Silvester, Fred

Eyre, Reginald
Mates, Michael
Sims, Roger

Faith, Mrs Sheila
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Speller, Tony

Fell, Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stainton, Keith

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Stevens, Martin

Garel-Jones, Tristan
Murphy, Christopher
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Gow, Ian
Myles, David
Stradling Thomas, J.

Gower, Sir Raymond
Needham, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N)
Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Norman

Gummer, John Selwyn
Normanton, Tom
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Thompson, Donald

Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Henderson, Barry
Parris, Matthew
Trippier, David

Hogg, hon Douglas (Grantham)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Waddington, David

Hooson, Tom
Percival, Sir Ian
Wakeham, John

Hordern, Peter
Proctor, K Harvey
Waldegrave, Hon William

Hunt, David (Wirral)
Raison, Timothy
Watson, John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wheeler, John

Knight, Mrs Jill
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Lang, Ian
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wickenden, Keith

Le Marchant, Spencer
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wilkinson, John

Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Sieves, Rt Hon Norman
Wolfson, Mark

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Carol Mather and

Major, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, leave out "constable" and insert "prison officer".
The matter that I wish to raise arises on clause 1(6). When I first read the Bill this wording stood out from the page. It says that a person
appointed by the Secretary of State as an officer responsible for the custody of persons detained in an approved place … shall, while acting as such, have all the powers, authority, protection and privileges of a constable.
That strikes me as rather odd. The power of a constable is given to those doing the work of a prison officer.
In the course of the Home Secretary's Second Reading speech I asked him why the Bill gave privates in the Army the power of a constable. He said in his rather benign way that he did not know, and that he would leave the matter to his Minister of State to deal with later. I thought that that was rather odd.
It was interesting that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), whose contract with the Police Federation obviously does not include overtime, thought that this was a serious matter. He spent the whole of his Second Reading speech telling us about it. The Minister of State intervened to indicate that the powers of a prison officer were set out in section 8 of the Prison Act 1952, which provides:

Every prison officer while acting as such shall have all the powers, authority, protection and privileges of a constable.
The same words are used in clause 1(6) of this Bill. The parliamentary draftsman has simply transposed the words. It is scruffy to put in that language without referring to the Prison Act and indicating that this is the existing power.
I did not know that prison officers always had the powers of a constable when acting within the prison and neither did the Home Secretary. It will surprise most people to know that a prison officer can act as a police constable in the execution of his duty. Interference constitutes the same offence as interfering with a police officer in the execution of his duty. An assault on him is the same as an assault on a police officer and does not carry the right of trial.
The parliamentary draftsman should have made that plain. I shall not press the matter further. I do not withdraw the amendment as I do not wish to stop my hon. Friends raising other points that I may have failed to notice.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: Clause 1 is the most draconian measure in granting power to the Home Secretary. One of the amendments proposed was so modest that even the Minister of State could


have accepted it, yet if his civil servants had had time to write a brief it would read "Resist".
Clause 1 gives the Home Secretary absolute power. The Minister says that prison visitors or boards will be able to inspect designated places but that the Home Secretary does not want to be tied by legislation. The inspection will be not within seven days but when it suits the Home Secretary. Once legislation leaves our hands, it is out of our control and in the Minister's hands. I deeply oppose the Home Secretary's desire for absolute power. He will have the power to make any place in the country a prison. He has made it clear that places other than military camps may come under his jurisdiction. There are widespread powers enshrined in clause 1.
We do not want the Bill in principle. We should like more time to give it proper consideration. We are handing over power to the Secretary of State to do what he likes. Conservative Members talk of Eastern European, Marxist States. The powers that the Government seek would be undistinguished in such States. They want unchecked, unscrutinised power. We put forward a tiny amendment to make the Home Secretary look over his shoulder. It did not suggest qualifying powers to alter his decision. We are told that he is entirely in agreement with the spirit of it but he does not want to be bothered with the letter of the law.
That is what it amounts to, because his Department would then have to follow what Parliament had laid down. That, plainly put, would be a damned nuisance. It does not want to be troubled with any fettering by Parliament; it wants to go as it pleases. To allow seven days for prison visitors to examine a place would be a nuisance, something to administer, some little obstacle in the free and unfettered use of these powers. So the proposal has to be rejected with some smooth words about accepting the spirit of the amendment.
We do not legislate in spirit. The interpretation of the courts of our legislation is not to do with the spirit of the legislators but with the narrow, literal and grammatical meaning. If it were interpreted in the spirit of the legislators, such words as "accepting the spirit of

the amendment" might have some meaning. That is not the position. It obtains in other countries, but not here. The literal and grammatical interpretation is that the Minister has free and unfettered powers, and I object to that.

Mr. Mikardo: I want to add one word to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). It is the business of Back Benchers to be ever suspicious of Ministers. That is the only thing that makes this place work properly—the constructive tension between the Back and Front Benches, and the vigilance that Back Benchers exercise over Ministers. It is my experience that the time to be most suspicious of a Minister is when he says of an amendment "I agree with its intention, I propose to do exactly what it says and for those reasons I will not accept it." That gives a pretty fair indication that it is the second half of that statement and not the first half that is the operative part.
The trouble is that civil servants always say to Ministers "When you get these nuisances in the House of Commons, these chaps on the Back Benches, especially late at night, the best thing to do is not to say 'No'; say Yes, but'. That has the same effect as saying 'No.' "What the Minister has done with regard to these amendments is to say "Yes, I agree with them, indeed I am going to act entirely in accordance with them, as though they had been written into the Bill, but …" The "but" is "But I want to be free not to act in accordance with them any time it suits me."
I always find that sort of pretension on the part of Ministers—and I have been listening to them for more than 30 years—hollow and incredible. It does not carry conviction or credibility. I hope that during the remainder of the Committee stage and on Report which is to follow—we have a long stint but the old 'uns unlike me will stick it out even if the young 'uns get tired—we shall not hear that oily hypocrisy from the Minister of State again.

Mr. Brittan: It seems that the only point that has been raised in the speeches of the hon. Members for


Keighley (Mr. Cryer) and Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is that it is not sufficient to rely on assurances as to policy, but that it is necessary in every case to spell out matters in the statute. I tried to explain why, in relation to the last amendment, I did not think that that was appropriate. Obviously, the Committee would not wish me to rehearse those arguments now. The only thing that is worth pointing out is that basically what the hon. Gentlemen were saying, with varying degrees of politeness, was that they did not trust Ministers to say what they would do. That is a view which they are entitled to take.

Mr. Mikardo: We are speaking from experience.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman certainly has much more experience than I, but the position is slightly different when the power in question is to be exercised for a period of one month, if it is to be exercised at all, after which the Minister must come back to the House. The hon. Gentleman does not have to trust us for long. He will soon see whether we do what we say we will do. If we do not, he will have the opportunity to make his point even more forcefully. For that reason alone his anxiety is not well founded.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

REMAND

2 am

Mr. Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. Some fairly extensive amendments are suggested to the clause. Will it be your intention to allow a "clause stand part" debate?

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): That will depend on how extensive the debate is on the points we are dealing with.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, after 'person' insert 'who is legally represented'.
This is an important amendment to an important part of the Bill. I concede that it has been met to some extent by the concession announced by the Minister

of State on Second Reading. The issue arises because the normal protection afforded to a charged prisoner under section 105 of the Magistrates' Courts Act will not operate and a person who would normally be expected to be brought before the magistrates' court once every seven days need not be so brought in the circumstances laid down in the clause.
The danger is that this is the one clause in the Bill where there is an incursion into civil liberty. A prisoner may be denied a traditional right. It is a serious matter to contemplate that a prisoner may not be brought before a court for a considerable time. I do not say that he will be forgotten by the court, but in the pressure of events, with a crowded list, he may not be put on a list for a long time and he might feel that he was being left on his own.
The problem will not be so serious if the prisoner has legal representation, and I have suggested that the clause should operate only in the case of those with legal representation. The Home Office would have to find ways of bringing anyone else before the courts every seven days.
The Minister has indicated that he will issue a circular to magistrates inviting them to consider themselves bound to offer legal aid in cases where they refuse bail on a first appearance. He has pointed out that under the Legal Aid Act they are obliged to offer legal aid when bail is denied for a second time. He is inviting the courts to take the view that that statutory duty is to be laid on them in respect of a first appearance.
A circular has no legislative effect. The magistrates can refuse to be bound by it and can deny legal aid. They will then be able to remand for a period much longer than the necessary seven days, and the accused will have no right to apply for bail, except to a judge in chambers. He is unlikely to do that without legal representation.
Therefore, although the Minister's assurance carries us some way, it by no means deals with the whole of what we are concerned about. It does not allay all our anxiety. Having regard to the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and myself on Second Reading, I am not at all sure that it is necessary for the Home Secretary to have this power.
We may seek to divide against the clause, despite the assurance that has been given, unless we have further reassurance. The danger that I foresee is not necessarily mitigated by the assurance.
Successive Home Secretaries have made enormous efforts to improve the rate of the grant of legal aid by magistrates' courts throughout the country for all kinds of criminal appearances, but, in some of the London courts in particular, the rate is poor. The circulars sent out by previous Home Secretaries, as well as the present Home Secretary, have not produced the response that was intended. Without a statutory back-up, the Minister's assurance will not necessarily be heeded in some magistrates' courts. That poses a serious difficulty.
I grant that my amendment carries the difficulty that if the accused were not legally represented, or if he refused legal representation, the Magistrates' Court Act would apply and he would have to be brought before the court within the seven days. The issue then would be whether he was in a prison where the prison officers were refusing to release him to come before the courts. That difficulty is not necessarily met by the assurance. There may be other ways of dealing with the matter.
A special court could be assembled within the prison, and the magistrates' could meet there to deal with such cases. That is perhaps a better way of dealing with the matter. If the Minister persuades me that this power is required, because of the prison officers' obduracy, an accused who is not given legal aid—because the magistrates refuse to accede to the circular or he refuses legal aid—may well still be left languishing in a prison, and nothing will be done about it until the end of the dispute. That is wholly unacceptable as a way of dealing with the civil liberties of an accused person.
Neither the Bill nor the assurance—nor, perhaps, even my amendment—would meet that difficulty. It may be that this whole area must be reconsidered for the precise reason that I gave at the beginning, that this is the one part of the Bill that is an incursion into civil liberty and that therefore we should

view it with the greatest concern in our review of the whole of this legislation.
I am not saying that my amendment is a perfect answer, but even now, after the assurance, it is one that the Minister might consider. He might also consider rethinking the clause before Report.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: In broad terms I support the remarks of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). Like the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, I am concerned about the provisions in clause 2. On Second Reading, I indicated the nature of my concern. The clause as it stands would result, in certain circumstances, in defendants not appearing before the courts for long periods of time, subject to the continuation of the Bill. I regard that as an undesirable situation. The purpose of defendants appearing before the courts once every eight days is basically to ensure that they have the opportunity of making representations to the courts, to ensure that they have the opportunity to expedite the committal proceedings and to enable the courts to cast an eye on defendants to ensure that they have not been ill-treated in any material way. Any Bill that removes the supervisory function on the part of the court is undesirable.
Without necessarily following what the lion. Member for York says about the solution, I should like the Committee to impose some limitation on the provision contained in clause 2. I should like to see, although it does not feature in any selected amendment, a requirement that the defendant be brought before the court at least once in a specified period, say, 21 or 28 days. That will not happen tonight. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider introducing such an amendment in another place. This matter is a serious intrusion into civil liberties. I am sorry that we should have done it.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: I am pleased to hear the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) make that commitment. I had tabled an amendment providing precisely for the 21 days' appearance in court. We shall perhaps have the opportunity to re-table it on Report when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends might find themselves able to give support even to the extent of voting for it.
I wish to speak to the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Despite the assurances given on Second Reading by the Minister of State, the Bill suspends the requirement of a weekly court appearance by a defendant remanded in custody. The amendments would ensure that this could be done only where the defendant was legally represented or where the right had been waived by the defendant, who, therefore, gave consent to this course of action. The amendments are important not solely for the reasons elucidated by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and the hon. Member for Grantham but also because the decision whether bail or remand in custody should be given is important for the individual concerned.
It is not necessary to give details now of the conditions in remand centres for those remanded in custody. It is sufficient to say that the conditions were described by no less an august and authoritative body than the May committee as a scandal. If that is the situation, it is no less a scandal that people are remanded in custody. Far too many people are remanded in custody and without bail. Of the 52,00 people remanded in 1978, about 44 per cent. were eventually found not guilty or were given a non-custodial sentence. All had already served, in effect, a prison sentence. It is not the case that many of those people serve only short periods in prison, though technically still innocent. Many men and women spend inordinate lengths of time in custody on remand, still technically innocent of the offence with which they have been charged.
If we had the Scottish system of 110-day release if the charges had not been brought to court, there would not have been 900 people in British prisons, on a single day last year, who had been on remand in custody awaiting trial. No one would defend those circumstances; neither would the Government, nor the Home Secretary, because he is as anxious about them as anyone. He should ensure that as few people as possible are unnecessarily remanded in custody for such long periods.
2.15 am
The Minister of State makes great play with the fact that the legislation will last for only one month. A month is a long

time in the life of an individual who is remanded in custody unnecessarily. It is no good simply brushing aside essential legal safeguards for the liberty of the subject. The Conservative claim to care about liberties more than we care, but in practice we do much more about them. The Minister "tuts", but tonight in a rushed sitting he is doing far more to erode liberties and to interfere with the so-called independence of the judiciary than my party did in its previous five years in power.
Remand in custody affects the whole environment of a person who might be innocent. It has enormous effects in terms of the person's job and family relationships. It is crucially disruptive even when the person is acquitted or found not guilty. Because of the stigma of custody, it is virtually impossible for him to pick up again his occupation, to live a decent law-abiding life among his fellow citizens or even to repair the damage done to his family and more remote relatives. All that must be taken into account when taking the decision whether to remand in custody.
Nothing is helped by removing the weekly appearance in court when the defendant can at least argue his own case. There are enormous disadvantages in being in custody. Lawyers will know better than I how much easier it is for a defendant to call witnesses, brief his solicitor and find people to give evidence or character references if he is not in custody. The defendant has a better opportunity to keep in touch with legal advisers and others who can help. He cannot prepare an effective case while in custody under the present prison conditions, and he will not be able to do that if the provisions in the Bill are enacted. The House has a fundamental duty to guard against that.
The amendments would ensure that this right was not removed unless the defendant had the advantage of professional advice when being considered for bail or had by consent waived his legal entitlement. The Times editorial has been quoted several times. It states:
The regular appearance by an unconvicted accused is an ancient and necessary safeguard against injustice and abuse.
No hon. Member would deny that. If that is so, I ask the Government to accept the amendments.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: By suggesting that there should be some administrative concessions the Government are back-pedalling a little. They are saying not that they are necessary now but that they might become necessary in future.
One solution is that people who have been remanded need not be brought before the court if they are legally represented. Those who support that view have more confidence than I in legal representations. I repeatedly hear complaints that a solicitor who had taken instructions to appear in a magistrates' court either did not turn up or sent a replacement who did not understand the case.
The assurance that someone will be legally represented is worthless. My constituents who get into trouble would like to be present to see that their legal representatives are carrying out their instructions and do a good job. They will not have confidence if they are not there to see that that is being done. Therefore, it is not sufficient for the Government to say that this provision will apply only to people who are legally represented. or that the Home Office will take steps to ensure that the courts give legal aid and that everyone is represented. If the Government want a safeguard, it is contained in the proposed amendment in page 2, line 30. The right must remain with the individual prisoner to insist that he is brought before the court if that is what he wants. Anything less than that is to deprive the individual of a basic right, and at this stage that cannot be justified.
It is often important to a prisoner that he can come before the court so that the court can see him and he can complain about the treatment he is receiving. It is also important for him to be seen by his relatives. It is often difficult for them to visit him anyway, and in present circumstances it is particularly difficult. The very fact that he appears in court is an opportunity for his relatives to see him and see that he is fit, and that gives them some reassurance.
The Government have given no indication why it is necessary at this stage to take away the prisoner's right to appear. The least the Government can do is to accept the amendment in page 2, line 30 which leaves with the prisoner

the right to request to be brought before the court.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The value of a Committee stage has been proved to me again tonight because I raised this matter during the Second Reading debate in the light of an amendment that we had tabled which was prompted to a large degree by the editorial in The Times. I realise the difficulties. Men are in police cells in Bodmin and they have to come to a court in London. The police cells in London are full. I have no doubt that the position has become even worse in the 24 hours since that information was first revealed. Our attempt was to make sure that the legal representative of the person concerned should appear in the court.
As a result of the Second Reading debate the Minister gave a commitment concerning the circular that has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). A number of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have raised the issue again. I do not want to rehearse the points that have been made. I simply want to express from this Front Bench the concern that is felt in the Committee and that I am sure will be raised in another place. It is important to look at this matter again. I shall be interested in the point that the Minister has put to us about the practical difficulties. It is no use our making it mandatory for the Government to do something that proves to be impossible.
I am concerned, as I know the Home Secretary is. Let us find the best way of dealing with this issue in the current circumstances. Doubts have been cast on the circular. I shall be interested in the Minister's comments in the light of the practical problems and the further consideration he has given to the matter.

Mr. Freud: I rise briefly to support the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), to embellish slightly the remarks of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) and to declare that I share the concern about legal representation voiced by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett). Prisoners on remand are not guilty. Therefore, it must remain their fundamental right to present their own case to show why they should not be committed to custody.
I do not have the 1978 figures quoted by the hon. Member for Ormskirk, but I do have the Home Office figures for 1977, which worry me. Of the 58,000 held in custody on remand, 2,000 were found not guilty and 28,000 did not eventually receive a custodial sentence, and should not have been remanded in custody in the first place. Put another way, 52 per cent. of those held in prison before trial were not sentenced to prison. Because remanded prisoners are invariably held in local prisons, and the conditions in those prisons are worse than in other prisons, they suffered an exceptional hardship when the intention of remand in custody is only to stop them getting away and not to punish them excessively before they are tried.
The clause would further weight the scales against prisoners held on remand. Those who are against clause 2 must insist that, whatever the position in the country, prisoners should be delivered before magistrates' courts even if that involves a hard decision by the Home Secretary, because in present circumstances it is difficult to achieve that. However, I feel that that is the job of the Home Secretary. The fact that the Government and their precedessors have been consistently incompetent and dilatory in their handling of the prison crisis has never been an excuse for an increase in the power of the Executive to override civil liberties and human rights.

Mr. Hooley: I regard the clause as far and away the most outrageous and obnoxious in the Bill—and I like very little the Bill as a whole. The clause is fundamentally in breach of the spirit of the statute of habeas corpus even if it does not actually override the letter of that statute. Surely it is a fundamental principle of our legal system that a person has a right to appear in court and state his case against being held and for being released on bail. We should not operate a system under which people could be held by the police without regular and frequent appearances in a properly constituted court to make their case.
The various points about health, condition and contact with relatives and lawyers have been adequately made by my hon Friends and there is no need for me to reiterate them, but it is a fundamental principle of our civil liberties that it is

now suggested should be put aside. The Minister will say that it is only for a short time. That is the sort of stupid excuse that we always hear from the Executive. We do not know the length of time. We do not know how intransigent the Home Office or the prison officers will be about the quarrel.

Mr. Freud: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Official Secrets Act 1911 was introduced for a short time as an experimental measure until the Bosnian crisis was over and is still on the statute book?

Mr. Hooley: That is an interesting point. That sort of thing may happen.
I am not accusing the Government of intending indefinitely to suspend a fundamental civil liberty. I am saying that the country is not in the sort of crisis where such a fundamental civil liberty should be suspended to satisfy the administrative convenience of the Home Office and to enable it to pursue its side of an industrial quarrel which is absurd in itself. We do not have to suspend civil liberties because of an industrial dispute which turns on an argument about whether somebody is paid an extra £1 for a meal break. That is utterly ridiculous and absurd. In no circumstances could I allow to pass the occasion on which such a clause was proposed in any Bill without opposing it. If I were the only person in the House to vote against it, I should certainly do so. I regard this as an absolute outrage.
2.30 am
Even under the draconian powers—and they are draconian—of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, about which I had a good many reservations, there was no provision such as this. Even under that Act the persons concerned had to be produced before the court so that their case could be properly heard and so that the public and their relatives might know what was going on.
I am glad that at least one Conservative Member has supported the complaints from these Benches. This is an absolutely outrageous clause. I am fairly confident that, if anyone sought to pursue the matter to the European Court of Human Rights or elsewhere within the next few weeks, it would bring opprobrium on this


country for neglect of fundamental human rights, an issue in respect of which we are supposed to be a great protagonist and a shining example.
I can see no defence for this clause. If the Home Office can seriously consider deploying troops and police in order to detain people who cannot otherwise be detained, it can certainly deploy troops and police to uphold an essential part of our civil liberties and enable the prisoners who ought to be presented before the court to be brought before the court. If the soldiers can be used for keeping people locked up, surely they can be used to transport, conduct or escort prisoners from the prison cells to the courts. That is obviously an undesirable and unsatisfactory arrangement, but, after all, it is part of the normal duties of the police to produce people in court. Surely from the point of view of maintaining an absolutely fundamental right of a proper process of law and of our civil liberties, arrangements could be made, even under the difficulties which exist, to ensure that people have a right to appear in court.
In no circumstances could I allow a clause of this kind in this wretched Bill to go through without voting against it, and I hope that there will be a substantial vote against this obnoxious provision.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) mentioned our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Of course, the House of Commons and the House of Lords are the proper guardians of the liberties of the people of this country. It is most regrettable that there is every indication that the present Administration will seek to renew our signature to that convention.
I was somewhat shocked that the hon. Gentleman suggested that he would encourage people to litigate through that source. After all, if for the sake of argument we are talking about the rights of minorities such as the rights of fiances to come into this country, that is something which ought to be a matter of concern and controversy not just within the Labour Party but also within the Conservative Party and within every group in

this House. But it is we who ought to decide these matters. I hope that those who disagree with anything that is going through this House will make their objections known here and not seek to appeal to any supranational body which may wish to impose its ideas as to how the liberties of the British people ought to be safeguarded.

Mr. Soley: It is precisely the failure of the House of Commons through the present Government to defend those liberties that makes us have to go outside it. Throughout the twentieth century Bills such as this have consistently undermined the very principles about which the hon. Gentleman is talking.

Mr. Budgen: It may be that at various times the House of Commons and the House of Lords have had differing views about the balance between the rights of the State and the rights of the individual. I would never argue either that the rights of the individual are absolute rights or that the rights of the State are absolute rights. Those are all matters of balance. But I regret most that there is some sort of Euro norm and that we, for instance, are an inferior race in relation to the treatment of minorities and that we may be dictated to and advised by, for instance, the Germans upon the treatment of minorities. That inevitably flows from our having signed the convention. I repeat what I said when some of my hon. Friends wished to take the matter of our immigration regulations—[Interruption].

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Several speeches recently have been well outside the issue that we are debating. I must bear that in mind.

Mr. Budgen: I think that there is some point in what hon. Gentlemen have said.

Mr. Brittan: I can well understand and appreciate the concern that the Committee has expressed about this provision. It is because I share that concern that I dealt with the matter at considerable length in my speech on Second Reading rather than waiting for the matter to be raised in Committee. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) put the matter fairly, and he has seen the competing considerations and the balance that we have to make on this matter.
With regard to the basic need for the provision, there is no difficulty in seeing the problem. Those people who appear on continual remands in custody may not always be allowed back to the prison to which they have been committed by the court during this dispute. There is the further point—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Mr. Brittan: I should like to continue for a moment and explain the position.
There is the further point that those people have to be escorted, which imposes a further burden at a time when the burdens are already considerable. There cannot be any doubt about the fact that a change of the sort that is proposed in this part of the Bill would play an important part in alleviating the situation. We are not suggesting that this is in any way desirable. It can be described as an erosion of civil liberty, but, equally, other provisions allowing for people to be released are undesirable. The only difference is the way in which they bite. There is no doubt that, if the object of the measures is to alleviate the pressure, this provision would succeed in so doing to a substantial extent. For that reason, we believe that clause 2 is necessary.
The question then arises whether its operation can and should be limited in any way. I indicated on Second Reading that I thought it right that an attempt should be made to secure that where possible a person, if not brought before the court under the provisions enabling the court to require a person to be brought before it, should at least be legally represented for the purpose of making an application for bail if he could not be present himself. I explained at length the existing procedure and the circular that we proposed to issue which would bring about that effect as far as possible.
The hon. Member for York said that that assurance was not sufficient because of the uncertainty that would be applied. It has been said that, in spite of the suggestions that legal aid should be granted, in some courts, which have been specifically mentioned, the proportions of the granting of legal aid appications are not as high as desirable. Without my going into the rights and wrongs of that, the

figures that had been mentioned refer to criminal legal aid in all criminal proceedings.
What we are talking about here and seeking to apply by analogy is not the general provision for the grant of legal aid but the specific provision of the Legal Aid Act which requires, in the circumstances that I outlined earlier this evening, that legal aid be granted to a defendant remanded in custody, subject to means. What I was seeking to do was to ensure by means of a circular that provision was applied at an earlier stage than is the case at present so that, effectively, legal aid would be available.
I think that that is a reasonable approach. The hon. Member for York and others, may doubt whether it does the trick. I have no reason to believe that it will not work or that it will be disregarded. But again, because this Bill, in the form that it will be when amended, provides for the power to have effect for only one month, we shall, within reasonable compass, know whether the measures that I have described will be effective to achieve the result which I think is reasonable.
The hon. Member for York was particularly fair in conceding that his approach would involve a difficulty if the person could not be brought up from prison because of the working of the dispute or for whatever reason, and could not be legally represented for some unforeseen reason. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), in his criticisms of the legal profession, suggested some discreditable reasons why the representation might not take place or might not be adequate. But there are other reasons of an unforeseeable kind where the same might occur. The hon. Member for York suggests that the alternatives should be either presence in court or legal representation. One must immediately ask: what if that simply cannot be procured? The answer is that if the solution that has been canvassed by the hon. Member—although, to be fair, not pressed by him—were adopted, the person concerned, who might be someone against whom there is strong evidence of his having committed a serious offence, would simply have to be released. That is the stark alternative.
I do not think that it would be acceptable to either the Committee or the


public that we should be placed in that position. It would be an entirely wrong position into which to be put. If we proceeded in the way that has been suggested, by legislative provision, we should be on the horns of that dilemma. At a time when it is not possible to predict the evolution of the dispute, I do not think that the Government can responsibly invite the Committee to agree to that course.
The course that I have suggested and indicated that the Government propose to follow certainly does not deal with the problem fully, but the problem cannot be dealt with adequately or fully until the whole dispute is resolved. We are talking not about what is desirable but about what is least bad. If we did what I have suggested by means of a circular, that would be achieving the best outcome in a difficult situation.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am very troubled by one point. The Minister is making the assertion that he must have the powers in clause 2 because of the inconvenience or perhaps the impossibility of transporting prisoners from the place of custody to court. But as I understand the position, as I said on Second Reading, the fact is that most of these offenders will be in places designated as prisons under clause 1 and very much within the control of the Home Office and not within the control of the prison officers. I do not see this inconvenience arising.

Division No. 477]
AYES
[2.47 p.m.

Beith, A. J.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Soley, Clive

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Tilley, John

Campbell-Savours, Dale
Mikardo, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

English, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Mr. Clement Freud and

Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Jo
Mr. Philip Whitehead.

Hooley, Frank





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John
Gow, Ian

Ancram, Michael
Carlisle Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gower, Sir Raymond

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, John Selwyn

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Colvin, Michael
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Berry, Hon Anthony
Costain, Sir Albert
Hawkins, Paul

Best, Keith
Dorrell, Stephen
Hawksley, Warren

Biggs-Davison, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Henderson, Barry

Blackburn, John
Dover, Denshore
Hooson, Tom

Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hordern, Peter

Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Eyre, Reginald
Hunt, David (Wirral)

Bright, Graham
Faith, Mrs Shelia
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Brinton, Tim
Fell, Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Brittan, Leon
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lang, Ian

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Le Marchant, Spencer

Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Budgen, Nick
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Mr. Brittan: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think he is right to say that there is a large number of offenders who are in prisons that are not designated. I assure my hon. Friend that the problem arises. He may or may not like the solution, but the problem certainly arises.
I was prolonging my remarks to accommodate my hon. Friend, who I noticed wanted to intervene earlier. I hope that I have dealt with the issues raised in the debate.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I thought that there was a real dilemma. Having heard the Minister, I am not sure whether there is. I had assumed that the prison officers were refusing to let the accused come out of prison to go to the court. The Minister says that they would not be allowed back in again if they were released out of court. If they are housed in a remand prison such as Brixton and they are allowed to come out and not allowed to go back in, they fall into the category of those who can go to the designated approved camps. In those circumstances, it is possible to say that those who are not legally aided can go elsewhere. That being so, I must press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes 111.

Lyell, Nicholas
Proctor, K Harvey
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Macfarlane, Neil
Raison, Timothy
Tebbit, Norman

Major, John
Rathbone, Tim
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Marlow, Tony
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Mates, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thompson, Donald

Mather, Carol
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Trippier, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Waddington, David

Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wakeham, John

Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Waldegrave, Hon William

Moate, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watson, John

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

Murphy, Christopher
Silvester, Fred
Wheeler, John

Myles, David
Sims, Roger
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Needham, Richard
Speller, Tony
Wickenden, Keith

Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Wilkinson, John

Normanton, Tom
Stainton, Keith
Wolfson, Mark

Onslow, Cranley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Stevens, Martin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Mr. John Cope and

Parris, Matthew
Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. Peter Brooke.

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 112, Noes 15.

Division No. 478]
AYES
[2.57 a.m.

Alexander, Richard
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Ancram, Michael
Hawkins, Paul
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Henderson, Barry
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Hooson, Tom
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Berry, Hon Anthony
Hordern, Peter
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Best, Keith
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Biggs-Davison, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)

Blackburn, John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Silvester, Fred

Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Lang, Ian
Sims, Roger

Braine, Sir Bernard
Le Marchant, Spencer
Speller, Tony

Bright, Graham
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)

Brinton, Tim
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stainton, Keith

Brittan, Leon
Lyell, Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor

Brooke, Hon Peter
Macfarlane, Neil
Stevens, Martin

Brown, Michael (Bring & Sc'thorpe)
Major, John
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)

Bruce-Gardyne, John
Marlow, Tony
Stradling Thomas, J.

Budgen, Nick
Mates, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)

Butcher, John
Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Norman

Carlisle Kenneth (Lincoln)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Pt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Donald

Colvin, Michael
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Cope, John
Moate, Roger
Trippier, David

Costain, Sir Albert
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of cheater)
Waddington, David

Dorrell, Stephen
Murphy, Christopher
Wakeham, John

Dover, Denshore
Myles, David
Waldegrave, Hon William

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Needham, Richard
Watson, John

Eyre, Reginald
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

Faith, Mrs Sheila
Normanton, Tom
Wheeler, John

Fell, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, RI Hon William

Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Wickenden, Keith

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Wilkinson, John

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Parris, Matthew
Wolfson, Mark

Garel-Jones, Tristan
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Gow, Ian
Proctor, K Harvey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gower, Sir Raymond
Raison, Timothy
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N)
Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Robert Boscawen

Gummer, John Selwyn
Rees-Davies, W. R.




NOES


Beith, A. J.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Soley, Clive

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Whitehead, Phillip

Campbell-Savours, Dale
Mikardo, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR the NOES

English, Michael
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Mr. Frank Hooley and

Flannery, Marlin
Richardson, Jo
Mr. John Tilley

Freud, Clement

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

RELEASE OF PERSONS COMMITTED OR REMANDED IN CUSTODY

Mr. Hooley: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
I suggest the deletion of his subsection because it is not clear to me why the Home Secretary should be given such sweeping powers to place on a person who is released under the provisions of subsection (1) absolutely any requirement he thinks fit.
I thought that we were living in the United Kingdom not the Republic of South Africa. This is the sort of draconian provision one expects in certain States but not in this country. We do not expect that a Secretary of State should have the unfettered power to require a citizen to do absolutely what he specifies.
What I find curious about this provision is that under subsection (1) the Secretary of State presumably has already determined that it is not against the public interest, or likely to cause any damage to the public, if the person concerned is released. There will have been a decision by the Home Secretary that whoever is dealt with in this fashion can be released. Presumably some inquires will have been made by an official to determine that such action will not cause any danger or serious harm to the public. I cannot understand why the Home Secretary should have these powers to require that person to do absolutely anything he specifies.
I should be interested to know why it is necessary for the Home Secretary to have the powers and what sort of conditions the Government have in mind to impose on someone who is released in these circumstances. Will he be told to report to the police every two hours, or two or three times a day? Will he be told to go to the labour exchange three or four times a day to see whether any jobs are available? Will he be told that he must live in a different town from his normal domicile or live within a mile or two of the prison from which he has been released?
What safeguards are envisaged in case the requirements imposed by the Home

Secretary are regarded by the prisoner, his family or his relatives as unreasonable or improper? Subsection (1) assumes that the release of a person is reasonable and it gives the Home Secretary power to decide on a release. I do not understand why it should be necessary for the Home Secretary to have wide, unfettered discretion, with no appeal, check or safeguard for the individuals involved, to tell prisoners what they must do when they are released.

Mr. Brittan: The answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) is simple. In complaining about the potential conditions that would be imposed, the hon. Gentleman assumes that we are concerned with a person who is entitled to be at large and is at risk from the Home Secretary imposing unreasonable conditions. In that situation it would be important that there were strict limitations on the conditions that could be imposed, but we are talking about people who ought to be in custody. Courts will have decided that they should be in custody. A release by the Home Secretary will follow a decision by the courts that a person should he in custody.
In those circumstances, different considerations arise. The person will have no entitlement to his freedom. He will be freed not because he is entitled to freedom, but because the exigencies of the situation make it necessary. It is entirely reasonable that the Home Secretary should be able to impose conditions.
Broadly speaking, the conditions that are envisaged are the same sort as are imposed when bail is granted. For the reasons that I have given, it is unnecessary to specify them, but the conditions will be broadly comparable with those imposed on persons who are given bail.

Mr. English: One can understand the conditions of bail under the Bail Act. Why does the clause not simply state that such conditions will be imposed?

Mr. Brittan: It is reasonable that the Home Secretary should not be fettered in that way. Broadly speaking, those are the sort of conditions that will be applied, but there may be circumstances in which it is appropriate that others should be imposed. If a person regards the conditions as onerous, he will not have to accept the release by the Home


Secretary. That is not an unreasonable proposition when one is talking about a person who has no legal entitlement to bail. One is talking only about someone in respect of whom the court has specifically considered whether bail should be granted and has decided that it should not. One is saying that in those circumstances, none the less, the Home Secretary should be entitled to set him free—not because of the person concerned but because of the situation.

Mr. Budgen: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that if the prisoner is then released by order of the Home Secretary he has a legal right to be released?

Mr. Brittan: I am not sure how narrowly my hon. Friend is arguing that. It is right that if the prisoner is released he is lawfully released, and to that extent that is so, but it is not right to say that he has any right to be released. It is lawful for the Home Secretary to impose a condition, and I have indicated the general nature of the condition.

Mr. Budgen: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will agree, however, that once the Secretary of State has directed within the terms of subsection (1) the prisoner has a legal right to be released.

Mr. Brittan: I do not see my hon. Friend's point. The provision that we are talking about is:
A person released under this section may be required by the Secretary of State to comply with such requirements as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
No doubt before making any such direction the Secretary of State will consider whether to make such a condition, and, if he does, the condition then applies. It is as simple as that. I do not think that there is any mystery about it.

Mr. English: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that we were dealing with the case of a person not entitled to bail, but where does the clause say that? It says:
In the case of any person committed in custody for trial"—
he may be on remand, in other words—
or committed in custody to be sentenced or otherwise dealt with by the Crown Court, or remanded in custody by any court, the Secretary of State may direct".

It does not say that the person is someone not entitled to bail.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is not making one of his better points. Plainly, the person concerned may obtain bail at some future time, but at the time in question the very fact that he has been remanded in custody means that he has not been given bail.

Mr. English: The hon. and learned Gentleman said "not entitled".

Mr. Brittan: The person has not got bail; he is not entitled to it—

Mr. English: At that moment.

Mr. Brittan: Yes—at that particular moment. He may get it next time.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The person may not have got bail, not because he is not entitled to it but because at that time he cannot raise the sureties for it. Surely that is different from the question whether he is someone to whom the courts would grant bail provided certain conditions can be met.

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. If sureties have been demanded and the person cannot provide them, he is not entitled to bail until he has provided them.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It may be for the convenience of the Committee and the abbreviation of these proceedings—supposing that to be desirable—if I phrase in the form of an intervention a point that I had hoped to put to the Minister later. A little while ago he seemed to say that it was at the option of the person concerned whether he would accept the onerous suggestion of release. The Minister said that if he does not like the conditions he need not be released. This is remarkable because, presumably, if the Secretary of State has directed that he should he released, he is released with no argument. In order, therefore, to fit the assertion of the Minister, we should have to assume that before the Secretary of State issues a direction he institutes an inquiry among likely candidates for release, setting out the conditions on which they might accept a direction. This is a most agreeable form of industrial relations. When both parties are satisfied with conditions under subsection (2) then, and only then, does the fiat of the Secretary


of State issue, and the man, having committed himself to be released, is released with no possibility of looking back and with no opportunity of hammering again on the doors of the police station saying that he did not understand the conditions, that he does not like them, and that he would like to come back in again. It is like Grimms' fairy tales.

Mr. Brittan: Where the right hon. Gentleman and I differ is that I am not sure which of Grimms' fairy tales he had in mind. That is no doubt a matter on which he will be able to enlighten us with his customary erudition. I do not think that there is any mystery. It is normal in the case of bail applications for conditions to be applied on a simple basis. They are conditions that are normally designed to make sure that the person answers to bail.

Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman was not saying that.

Mr. Brittan: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the point, that will be more convenient for the Committee. If the Secretary of State regards the condition as being necessary, it may be a condition that he can simply impose or a condition that effectively requires the consent of the person on whom the condition is imposed. There is nothing unusual or strange about the situation. At the end of the day the Home Secretary will have to decide whether a person is to be released with those conditions or without those conditions, in exactly the same way as a court decides whether to grant bail.

Mr. Hooley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) for drawing attention to the point about bail. He has reminded me that subsection (3) states:
that duty shall be enforceable, in accordance with section 6 of the Bail Act 1976 as if his release under this section were release on bail in criminal proceedings.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the law to know what sorts of conditions are imposed or required under the Bail Act or any orders or directives made under the Act. Subsection (3) states explicitly
as if his release under this section were release on bail in criminal proceedings".

Surely, there are already statutes and regulations covering that matter. I fail to see why the Home Secretary should be given sweeping and extra powers under subsection (2) to impose absolutely any conditions that he may think fit. It is clear from subsection (3) that the Minister is right in saying—I must apologise for not having picked up that point—that the Act does say that this is the kind of thing envisaged. If that is the case, under the provisions of subsection (3), I do not now understand what is the necessity for the sweeping powers, taken under subsection (2), which enable the Home Secretary to impose any conditions.
If the Bail Act or the regulations there under are defective or inappropriate, the Minister can perhaps say so. The Minister said that that was his intention. Under such circumstances I cannot understand why subsection (2) is required.

Mr. English: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) is right. Either the Minister has an appallingly bad brief or he has been reading that part of it which relates to clause 3(3). Everything is in subsection (3). It says:
That duty shall be enforceable in accordance with section 6 of the Bail Act 1976".
The Minister surely will admit that a subsection could have been written expressing exactly what he has said. He has said that the type of condition intended is that which can be imposed when people are released on bail under the Bail Act. If that is so, why on earth does not the subsection say so? Instead, it states:
A person released under this section may be required by the Secretary of State to comply with such requirements as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
In other words, the Government are saying " Provided that you beat your wife regularly we shall release you." or " Please go and buy 2 lb of butter at a particular grocer's every week."
What is the limitation of the clause? Why is it so widely drawn? It seems to be the product of a draftsman's slovenliness. It is easy to draw a wide clause to cover all possible cases. Whoever wrote the Minister's brief must have had in mind some of the cases that it was intended to cover. The provision is unnecessarily wide. The Minister has a


little time, since the Bill must go to the Lords. He should withdraw the clause until he can give an assurance that some limitations will be placed on it.

Mr. Budgen: I do not agree that subsection (2) is unnecessary because of subsection (3). Subsection (3) relates only to the duty to surrender into custody. A person on bail might have a number of other duties. For instance, he might be under a requirement to report to a police station at various times in the day or to notify the police of his address. Such requirements could be made under a more narrowly defined subsection (2).
I agree that subsection (2) is wide, and could lead to abuse. If it were drawn in a narrower form I should support that part only of clause 3 to which in principle I am opposed.

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is right to say that subsection (3) has nothing to do with conditions but merely provides that the duty is enforceable in the courts under section 6 of the Bail Act 1976, which deals with the offence of absconding by a person released on bail. It imposes a duty to respond to the bail. The question of conditions is a separate matter. That is why it is necessary to have subsection (2) as well as subsection (3).
I concede that the clause is extremely wide. I have explained the way in which the Home Secretary will apply it. It is entirely legitimate, particularly when we are discussing emergency provisions that are in force for only one month, to indicate exactly what the Home Secretary proposes to do.

Mr. Budgen: The provisions can be renewed.

Mr. Brittan: Of course they can be renewed. At the end of a month the House will be in a position to judge how the power has been exercised. I have explained the difference between what is being done on this issue and on the question of bail where there is a legal entitlement.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move, in page 4, line 2, to leave out
he is delivered in due course of law

and insert
he is brought before a court at the earliest opportunity after his arrest".
The amendment is related to subsection (7) and to the power of a constable to arrest any person who has been released under the Secretary of State's authority under the clause in circumstances that the Committee may think deserve more probing than we can afford to give them tonight.
The relevant phrase in subsection (7) deserves a closer examination, and it is in a probing spirit that I move the amendment. Where the person is arrested by the officer on suspicion that he will not honour the conditions of bail that have been granted by the Secretary of State, the subsection says that he must be kept in custody in a prison until he is delivered
in due course of law.
I want to know what those words mean in terms of the law both as it stands and as it is amended by the Bill. The point that I have written into my amendment is that he should be brought before the court at the "earliest opportunity". I should have thought that that was more desirable than
in due course of law.
The "earliest opportunity" might be a little sooner, especially in the light of clause 2. It is therefore desirable that we insist that where the officer acts in this way to arrest a man who has already been released by the Secretary of State, that man should be brought before the court without delay.
I am caused to argue in that way by the width of subsection (6). The constable needs only to have "reasonable grounds" to believe that the accused is unlikely to respond to the conditions of his bail. It is difficult to see what limits exist in that. "Reasonable grounds" are the delimiting words, and they can mean anything according to the test that is applied by the court or, under a subjective analysis, by the officer. If a man has been released from custody under this executive bail and is then seen in the street by the officer who arrested him in the first place, that officer taking a different view of the merits of the situation from the Secretary of State, the officer may think that it is only right to take the man into


custody and shove him into a police cell.
That kind of cat-and-mouse game ought not to be played. The only way in which we can ensure that it does not, and that the power in subsection (6) is exercised sensibly, is by insisting that the man is brought before the court at the earliest opportunity, so that the court can determine perfectly clearly whether the officer exercised his power correctly in proper circumstances. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment or, if he cannot, that he can assure me that my anxiety is unjustified.

Mr. Stainton: I wish to supplement the remarks of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) by saying that it is slightly bewildering that the provisos, slender though they are, of Part II of the Bill do not extend to subsection (7). It is to that context that I wish the Minister to address his remarks.

Mr. Brittan: I shall explain the position relating to subsection (7). A person arrested in pursuance of subsection (6) is put back into the position that the court originally created, namely, of being arrested and in custody. There is no point in requiring that he be brought before the court at the first possible opportunity because the court decided some time previously that he should be in custody. It would have been the Home Secretary who released him, not the court.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) raised a different point. It was not the point that I had expected; none the less, it requires to be dealt with. The hon. Member suggested that there should be some protection against a constable taking somebody into custody without reasonable grounds. The difficulty is that the court before which the prisoner was brought would not have the power to determine that issue. Under the Bill, or under any normal provision of law, it would not have that power. It would have to be tested in a different way. The amendment suggests that in the case of an arrest the position should be restored to exactly what it was when it was created by the court in the first place, and before the Home Secretary intervened.

Mr. Lyon: I find that explanation quite seriously disturbing. A man may come before a court in the present crisis and be remanded not for seven days, as would be usual, but for 28 days, to pass the period of the crisis. Because of his concern for congestion either at Brixton or a prison camp, the Home Secretary may release him after two days. If the man then walks around in Lambeth and a police officer sees him and says "I do not think you should be out; I shall arrest you and put you back into a police cell", according to the Minister he cannot appear in court before the 28 days because the court cannot question him. He is the subject of cat-and-mouse treatment.
I could not lay down any qualification on the power in subsection (6) because it is manifest that if a police officer saw the man boarding a boat for Canada when he was supposed to stay in Britain there would be reasonable cause for taking him into custody believing that he intended to break the conditions of his executive bail. If the police officer abuses his power by arresting him when he has been released on executive bail simply because he disagrees that it was reasonable to release him because he thinks that he is a serious criminal who should not be given bail, it is intolerable that the police officer should superimpose his judgment on that of the Home Secretary and that that should not be tested by a court at the earliest opportunity.
I ask the Minister to consider what the position would be. Of course the court would have the right to consider the matter. If the man were brought before the court immediately, the court said "We were not supposed to see him for 28 days, why is he here?", and the story came out, does the Minister seriously think that the magistrates would approve of the police officer's action and say "You must wait for the other 28 days"? The court would say "Not on your life. We release you on bail here and now. If the Secretary of State cannot keep you when we told him that he had to, we shall release you on bail on our conditions". That is surely the right way to look at this.
Such a person ought to be brought before the court at the earliest opportunity in order that the court can decide what should be done, recognising that if the


Secretary of State let him out there are difficulties about putting him back in again. Therefore, the court should decide the conditions and what ought to happen. I seriously ask the Minister to consider this point. Obviously, I cannot press it, but a real problem exists. It may be that before the Bill goes to the other place something could be done about providing some protection.

Mr. Stainton: I should like to press the Minister on the possibility of making subsection (7) subject to the very lean safeguards of clause 2, which would operate quite admirably in these circumstances. The court could then summon this prisoner if it wished to, and it could even proceed to adjust the situation by offering bail or fresh terms of custody. I cannot see why clause 2 should not apply.

Mr. Brittan: I am sorry, but I do not think that I understood the point when it was first put. I think that I do now. I think the answer is that clause 2 continues to apply, because the position then is just as if the person had been remanded in custody.
I should like to answer the further remarks of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), because I know that he has made a serious point. It really is not a question of the superimposition of the constable's view as being different from that of the Home Secretary. If a constable is doing that, he is really acting in bad faith. That is not what he is entitled to do at all. He is considering whether there are reasonable grounds for believing, for example, that the person is not likely to surrender himself into custody. That is quite a different matter from second-guessing the view of the Home Secretary.
Therefore, when we are talking about the application of the Home Secretary's release provisions. it would be quite inappropriate that a court that has had nothing to do with that decision should consider it. It has considered the ordinary question of bail and formed a different view.
The hon. Gentleman then asked about protection against the constable acting in bad faith and arresting a person when he purports to have reasonable grounds and does not. The answer is that such an arrest would be unlawful and would be challengable not before the magistrates'

court but in the way in which anyone unlawfully arrested may challenge an arrest.

Mr. Lyon: I am sorry. I did not want to detain the Committee for so long. However, is it right that we should go through the procedure of the prerogative writ in order to determine mala fides in a police officer who may simply be "stroppy" and who takes a person into custody when he should not have done? Surely the whole purpose of going before the magistrates is that that matter could be ironed out very quickly and easily, in a commonsense forum, where the magistrates would say "Well, clearly we cannot adhere to our original order because the Secretary of State does not have room in the prison, but we ought to make different terms and conditions, because it is quite wrong that this man was rearrested". Surely something could be done before the Bill goes to the other place.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Budgen: I hope that the Minister will explain, in relation to both clauses 3 and 5, why the Government find it necessary to ask for each of these additional powers. It can be accepted that they now have powers under clause I that will lead to a substantial break in the monopoly powers exercised by those who supply the services that are given by prison officers. If they have those powers, why is it necessary for them to have the further powers that are set out in clause 3?
I understand why the Home Secretary and the Minister of State have said that they believe that those powers are necessary to their central objective, but the blanket way in which they have been recommended is an inadequate explanation to the Committee. Each power has the effect of relieving the prison population of a certain number of people.
The Committee may take the view that the granting of one of those powers is necessary in the special circumstances facing the prison service now. It does not follow that they are all necessary. I hope that the Minister will tell us, for


instance, how many places he can expect to be provided within the next two weeks under the powers included in clause 1, and then explain why it is necessary to ask for the powers set out in clause 3. He and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary concede from the outset that the powers granted under clause 3 raise serious objections of principle.

Mr. Stainton: I wish to make three brief, largely drafting points.
Subsection (1) does not make clear whether there will he any public knowledge of the persons who are being released. It is desirable and important that that information should be available.
Under subsection (2) the Secretary of State will have the power to stipulate requirements. There is no requirement about how those provisions and conditions are to be intimated to the person concerned.
In subsection (3) I distinctly dislike the " notice in writing " that is to be given to the prisoner,
on behalf of the Secretary of State at or after the time of his release.
I propose that the words "or after" be deleted. Those words could lead to considerable confusion, despite, in certain circumstances, the complete innocence of the person concerned. It is simply playing safe from the Home Office standpoint in case the paper work falls behind.
I repeat that it would be desirable to place a duty on the Secretary of State under subsection (2) as to the communication of his requirements in writing to the affected party at the time of his release.

Mr. Brittan: I deal first with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton). I was first asked about "any public knowledge" of the people released. If my right hon. Friend had to exercise this power he would propose to make public the categories of offenders who were to be released. As was explained at an earlier stage, it would be a question of the release of categories, with the possibility of the police applying to the Home Secretary for an individual,

for particular reasons, not to be released although he comes within the category.
Secondly, there is not a specific provision in the Bill specifying how requirements have to be communicated, although there is clearly, by implication, a provision that makes it necessary for the requirements to be communicated.
I see the force of what my hon. Friend said. I think that it would be desirable and, I suspect, invariably the practice, for the requirements to be communicated in writing where such requirements are imposed, but I concede that it does not appear on the face of the Bill and is not actually a legislative obligation imposed upon the Secretary of State.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend asks why it is necessary for it to be possible for the person who is released to be told not only at the time but also afterwards where he has to turn up, as it were. It is necessary to provide that the released person may be informed of the arrangements for his surrender to custody after he has been released because the time and place of the next hearing of his case may not always be known at the date of his release. It is for that reason alone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) asked whether it was necessary for this power to be taken. The answer is that my right hon. Friend thinks that it is necessary, because at present we have 3,500 people in police cells, and that is a wholly unsatisfactory situation because, as many hon. Members have pointed out, police cells are not suitable for prolonged incarceration.
As to the relief provided by clause 1, as my right hon. Friend indicated, Frank-land prison will be available as from Thursday morning to take a maximum of 900 people. I have already indicated that the only alternatives at present envisaged are Army camps. Although those are being investigated and explored, I am not in a position to say that specific Army camps are now available. In that situation it seems to me that, subject to the close supervision of the House of Commons that is provided for in effect by the Bill, it is both necessary and reasonable for my right hon. Friend to


be given the powers specified in the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

EARLY RELEASE OF PRISONERS

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryan Godman Irvine): The next amendment is in page 4, line 15, in the name of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), who is not in his place. The amendment is not moved.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I have one amendment in the bundle of amendments. The issue that arises is whether this occasion should be taken as an opportunity for using more widely the power of release which is implied in the Bill and which is also implied in the existing power to grant remission. It raises the possibility of giving a 50 per cent. remission, as in my new clause—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) proposing to move the first amendment in the group?

Mr. Lyon: I wish to move my new clause.

The First Deputy Chairman: That cannot be done at this moment. We are dealing with page 4, line 15. If the hon. Gentleman is proposing to move the amendment, he will be in order to do so.

Mr. Lyon: I beg to move in page 4, line 15, leave out
(but not more than six months earlier)".

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: in page 4, line 15, leave out
at such time earlier (but not more than six months earlier) than they would otherwise be so released as may be fixed by the direction
and insert—
when they have served half their sentence".
In page 4, line 15, leave out
but not more than six months earlier".
In page 4, line 15, after "than" insert

(and after not less than 9/10 of the period of imprisonment after which)".
We shall also discuss the following: new clause—Early remission of prisoners—


"(1) The Secretary of State shall direct that remission of sentence for persons of any class who are serving a sentence of imprisonment other than imprisonment for life shall be increased from one third to one half.
(2) A direction under this section may define a class of persons in any way including the nature of their offence.

New clause—Remission of Sentences—
The Secretary of State shall direct that any person of a class specified in the Schedule to this Act shall be entitled to a remission of 50% of his sentence subject to good behaviour.
New schedule—Remission of Sentences—
1. All sentences of less than 30 months.
2. All sentences of over 30 months for offences not involving violence, rape, robbery or traffic in drugs.

Mr. Lyon: The Bill places a limit upon the power of the Home Secretary to release by providing that it should be not more than six months before the due release date. It seems that that is an unnecessary limitation upon the powers that he is taking, especially when we consider the present crisis in the prisons.
Having moved the amendment, I think that I can revert to my argument on the new clause that is linked with it, which would give a much wider power to the Home Secretary to give 50 per cent. remission in certain circumstances.
We have talked at some length about the crisis in the prisons occasioned by the prison officers' dispute. However, we have had a crisis in the prisons since well before the period when a former Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, was talking about it. We have not solved the crisis. That is not because we did not put in resources and not because we did not open new prisons. New prisons have been opened since Roy Jenkins was talking about the matter. We have not been able to keep pace with the rate at which people are being sent to prison.
4 am
An unusual feature of our criminal justice system is that so many people are sent to prison. With the exception of one country, Britain's position is the worst in Western Europe. It is incredible


that we should have to send so many people to prison. Every European country faces serious crime, but other countries find it possible to deal with it without putting people in prison to such an extent.
Holland is an outstanding country, in that it copes with the same type of crime pattern by sending people to prison for much shorter periods. If there is a crisis, it must be right to give the experiment a chance and to release people on a wider scale than the clause intends. The clause restricts the position to such an extent that it is unlikely greatly to reduce the prison population. It is simply a way of easing the position should the prison officers' dispute lead to tension in a particular prison. It would then be possible to cope with the situation.
It is more desirable to reduce the whole prison population quickly. As the Lord Chief Justice indicated in a recent judgment that it would be appropriate to pass shorter sentences, this should be the occasion for permitting a once-for-all remission. If such a remission were given in the context of this dispute, it would be more acceptable and would overcome many of the difficulties that have been placed in the path of this proposal in the past. It has been argued that such a proposal would interfere with judicial discretion. If we are to interfere with judicial discretion—as this clause does—we should do so properly. The opportunity must be taken to include a provision for a once-for-all 50 per cent. remission. If that opportunity is taken at a time when the Lord Chief Justice is experimenting with shorter sentences, the numbers in our prisons will fall dramatically from about 46,000 to 25,000 or 30,000. That would be a most productive and salutary result. If that were achieved, many of the problems would be easier to handle, not least the dispute. Prison officers would be more willing to come to an agreement about new rotas and allowances if the strains of overtime caused by overcrowding were reduced by a decrease in the prison population. That would not be inconsistent with the penal policy of any Home Secretary.
The Conservative Party came into office on a platform of increasingly repressive law and order. The Government said that they would stand by the

courts in their attempt to stamp out crime. Within a year, the Home Secretary has had to say that shorter prison sentences are a good thing and should be encouraged. We have been saying that for a long time. Surely the fact that the Home Secretary has said that should persuade some Conservative Back Benchers. If such a provision were introduced, people would recognise, within two or three years, the virtues of shorter prison sentences and of using alternatives to custody in the control of crime.
The fact is that nothing is a deterrent to crime except, perhaps, age. When a criminal gets past 30 his criminal activities begin to tail off. Before that age there is not much that can be done to deter him. Every study that has been carried out indicates that the deterrent theory of sentencing is nonsense. Instead, we must provide a proper, suitable sentence for the crime and for the criminal, and we should not seek to pile on the agony after each successive crime in order to try to deter either him or some other person from committing similar offences. It does not work, and it is counterproductive. In those circumstances, one of the virtues of the Bill might be that it gives us an opportunity to carry out the experiment of a 50 per cent. remission in certain cases. It is on that basis that I press my amendments.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Home Secretary may find my amendment as difficult to understand as I find this clause. However, it gives me an opportunity to ask three questions. First, I wholly disagree with the point made by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon), who said that there is no such thing as a deterrent. We have only one or two specific examples that we can look at—the abolition of capital punishment in this country and the abolition, through the European Court decision, of corporal punishment in the Isle of Man. In both cases the removal of the deterrent was certainly followed by a substantial increase in the crimes that they affected. These are the only two particular cases of which we have recent evidence. I suspect that we should be here a lot longer tonight if we got involved in those issues.
My amendment provides that in addition to
not more than six months earlier


we should add the complicated words
and after not less than 9/10 of the period of imprisonment after which
The reason why I have tabled this amendment is that I think it very strange that the figure of six months should be inserted to cover a substantial number of people, all of whom are serving different lengths of sentence. For example, a six months' remission for someone in prison for two years is a different matter from a six months' remission for someone serving a 10-year sentence.
I wonder whether the Minister could indicate how he intends to apply the six-month rule. If he intends to have a general reduction, will he apply it in some relationship to the actual length of sentence? Clearly, it would be ridiculous to have a six-months remission for someone serving a long sentence, and a six-months remission for someone serving two years.
My second question is, six months earlier than what? This is important. The clause says:
(but not more than six months earlier) than they would otherwise be so released
What does that mean? Does it mean the sentence less the full amount of parole that could be obtained? Is the Minister thinking of six months off the sentence less the appropriate parole and remission that could be obtained in these circumstances? I hope that he will indicate exactly what is meant. It is quite obvious that we would not know what the appropriate remission given would have been if the case had not gone to the Parole Board.
My third question is one that I have asked before, and I am afraid I did not get an entirely satisfactory answer. Unlike clause 4, which was related to the emergency, clause 5, as worded, makes it clear that the Secretary of State shall not give a direction unless it is necessary to do so in order to make the best use of places available for detention. The clause could be used to deal with the general and continuing situation in prisons, which the hon. Member for York mentioned.
The Minister said earlier that the provisions would only be temporary, but that is not what I was asking. It would be wrong if the clause were used to deal with the general problem of overcrowding in prisons and not simply to cope with

the direct results of the current industrial dispute. If it is the Minister's intention only to use the power to cope with problems directly resulting from the action of the prison officers, it would be helpful if something along those lines could be inserted in the Bill, such as "in relation to the current dispute".
The hon. Member for York and many others have argued with vehemence for a long time that we should clear out our prisons and reduce sentences. I do not believe that that would help to reduce crime. The remarkable document published yesterday by the Home Office, with a very full press release, indicated that, according to the two so-called experts, reducing sentences would not necessarily lead to dramatic increases in the overall level of crime, but they did not argue that it would not result in an increase. I believe that it would.
The Secretary of State must avoid any impression that he is seeking to use an emergency Bill to deal with a general problem. The prisons were over-full before the prison officers' action. They will probably be so after that action. If the Home Secretary wants to bring forward a measure to enable him to clear out prisons by means of a six-months remission, where appropriate, it should be in the context of a general Bill and not this measure.
I make these three points: six months earlier than what? Is it the full sentence less the full remission that could be obtained if parole were given? Would it not be wiser to give an indication of the scale that it is intended to operate? Presumably, if the Secretary of State considers six months appropriate for a long-serving prisoner, it would not be six months for a prisoner serving a short sentence?
Finally, the measure should be directly related to the emergency. It is difficult to see why we should have the power to deal only with prisons and not approved places when the prisons are emptier than they would have been had there been no strike. About 3,000 people are stuck in police stations who would otherwise be in prison. What is the measure designed for? We accept that it will be for only the duration of the strike, but can the Minister assure us that it will be used to deal only with


situations arising directly from the dispute and not with the general overcrowding in prisons? If he intends to deal with that, it should be in a separate Bill.

Mr. Freud: The clause deals with the early release of prisoners. The Home Secretary has often enthused about the merits of short, sharp sentences. It is therefore right that he should look most carefully at the early release of prisoners.
I tabled a new clause, which was lumped together with this amendment. The conditions in which prisoners live are the conditions in which prison officers work. Nothing could benefit prison officers and ease tension in their service more than a substantial reduction in the prison population.

Mr. Alan Clark: Logically, that must be happening at the moment. Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, if prison officers are refusing to admit criminals but in the normal course of events they are discharging other prisoners at the end of their time, the prison population must be decreasing substantially.

Mr. Freud: That is right. This is a short-term cosmetic way in which, unintentionally, the lot of the striking prison officers is being eased. My new clause aimed to give 50 per cent. remission, obviously without having magistrates aiming off such remission, and would do what may be happening now, but on a much more permanent basis. This has all sorts of implications for our sentencing policy.
4.15 am
Should we go on imprisoning petty inadequates, who desire only security and could be much more cheaply catered for, perhaps in the new holding centres about which the Minister of State spoke? Should we go on imprisoning fine defaulters—in the average population there are over 100,000 at any one time—with an annual total of 16,000 prisoners who are maintenance defaulters, and no more than that? Should we not do something more about alcoholics? There has been a pretty pathetic performance by both Labour and Conservative Governments in providing detoxification centres. What about the mentally disordered, who now

form 20 per cent. of the prison population?
In the short term, the best way of reducing the prison population is to cut the length of some prison terms. This new clause suggests increasing remission. I agree with that. What is desperately important is that if the Home Secretary expects to override people's rights in one respect in pursuit of his Government's confrontation policies, the least that he can do is to experiment with general penal reform.
My suggestion is that we should try. If it is shown that no floodgates are opened, that there is no great increase in recidivism, we shall have done in an emergency Act something towards paving the way for a more consistent and permanent policy of remission.

Mr. Budgen: The main reason why I am concerned about the powers that may be granted under clause 5 is contained in the speech made by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). He plainly illustrated the risk that the Committee may be setting a precedent for Parliament's interference in the discretion and independence of the judiciary. I accept that there was previously no convention by which the House of Commons did not interfere in the discretion of the judiciary. Each time we break through that barrier of reluctance it becomes easier to do it the next time.
I say that it is not a precedent in the sense that it is a legal precedent, binding on our successors. It is certainly an unwise step, which makes future unwise steps easier. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will tell the Committee how many places we have now relieved the prison system of. We have, as he made plain in dealing with clause I, made Frankland available, and with it 900 places. My hon. and learned Friend has not told us how many places would, in his opinion, be made available by the exercise of powers under clause 3. We have now to add, I regret to say—since I did not get quite the number of allies I hoped for—a number of places under that clause.
We now come to clause 5. Here I marginally disagree with the Home Secretary. He seemed to feel that the powers that he sought under clause 3 were the ones about which he felt the greatest


doubts. All that I can say is that at least the people who may be released under Executive bail are not persons who have been convicted and sentenced.
At least those released under Executive bail are entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the non-imprisonment of a person under clause 4 may be a mere postponement of his later imprisonment, because when a person fails to make a monetary payment he is given many opportunities to make the payment. The threat of imprisonment is merely held over him and is not usually imposed by the courts except as a last desperate resort.
The powers in clause 5 go to the heart of the relationship between the Executive and the judiciary. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will use those powers only with the greatest reluctance and I am sure that he would wish the Minister of State to tell us at what stage it is expected that powers under clause 5 might be requested. He has places available under clause l , with other Army camps in the pipeline. He also has a lot of room for manoeuvre under clause 3 and some room under clause 4.
I hope that the House, recognising the delicacy of its relationship with the judiciary, will not grant the proposed powers unless we know in what circumstances and in order to relieve what numbers it is necessary to grant them.

Mr. Hooley: I am curious to know why the period of six months is specified in the clause. We have been told throughout the Committee stage that the Home Secretary must have unfettered discretion to act on his own judgment, yet a limitation is imposed in respect of the release of prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman wants flexibility everywhere else and I am not clear why he is not so anxious to have it in this case.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said about the importance of reducing the prison population, not just in an emergency but by having a more intelligent system under which fewer are committed to prison, and for less time.
If the Home Secretary releases several hundred prisoners in a particular category six months early, only to find that the dispute ends three days later, will he not

create considereable bitterness among more deserving cases, who will not be able to obtain remission because the right hon. Gentleman's powers will lapse when the dispute is settled? He will run into trouble with prisoners and their families if that happens. It will not make for a happy atmosphere in the prisons—unhappy places anyway—if that different treatment is abitrarily meted out by fiat of the Home Secretary under such powers.
However, my principal point is to ask why the six months' restriction is imposed, whereas everywhere else in the Bill the Home Secretary has asked for absolutely unfettered discretion.

Mr. Soley: I do not like penal reform being pushed through in such a Bill. I am fully in favour of penal reform generally, but I do not like it in a Bill of this nature. Apart from anything else, it disguises the unfortunate aspects of the Bill.
I wholly support the general comments of my hon. friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). I hope that the Home Secretary will learn his lesson and draw the conclusion from the clause and others that he should introduce a Bill that will do something to reduce the prison population, so that we do not again get into a similar absurd and discrediting situation.
I should like to say a few words in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). The real objection to the clause is that by saying that one will release some people one necessarily implies that others will not be released. Because it is necessarily arbitrary, it raises false expectations, and it is therefore totally unfair, not only to prisoners but to their families.
My hon. Friend was right to point out that, if the dispute is over shortly after a number of people have been released, the action will be even more unfair and arbitrary. The Home Secretary should ask himself what will happen when one of two people who were sentenced at the same time for an offence in which they were both involved is released because he happens to be in one institution and the other is not released because he is in another institution. What will the Home Secretary do then, particularly if the second person chooses to go to the European Court for Human Rights, in


Strasbourg, with what I think would be a reasonable complaint against the Government?

Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the matter might even give rise to the outside possibility that prisoners might wish to foment trouble between themselves and warders in order that the presure upon a particular prison might be relieved through the exercise of these powers? I hope that they would be entirely mistaken in believing that it would have that consequence, but they might try it on in that way.

Mr. Soley: That is an interesting thought. I think that there is an underlying truth in what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps I may put it in a slightly different way. Already a large part of our problems in prisons stems from a sense of unfairness and from unreasonable rules and regulations being applied where there is gross overcrowding, insanitary conditions, and so on. That can only be added to if one provides for yet more arbitrary actions, which appear to the prisoner to have no rhyme or reason, if he does not see why one man should be released and another should not.
I think that the clause is wholly mistaken—but, then, I think that the whole Bill is wholly mistaken and an assault on our liberties.

Mr. Stainton: I do not want to embark on a discussion of penal reform, though we have had some interesting contributions on that theme. We should not get the two matters confused. We are clearly dealing with an emergency provision, and it must not be interpreted otherwise.
The debate gives me an opportunity to raise a question direct with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the status of section 47(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. My understanding is that the section permits courts to impose sentences of imprisonment that could be served in parts, with the remainder in suspense. Although the Act is three years old, the requisite order to implement section 47 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 has never been introduced by any Government. My question simply is, "Why not?"

Mr. Alan Clark: This is certainly the most objectionable provision in the Bill. It is the one about which the public will feel the greatest apprehension and possibly resentment should certain circumstances flow from it. This is because, qualitatively, it is quite different from any of the other provisions of the Bill. I should like my hon. and learned Friend to state in what circumstances this power may be used. Surely, at the present time, the pressure is outside the prisons and not within them, for the reasons that I tried to give in an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).
The prison population is steadily falling. The pressure is outside. We appreciate that the Home Secretary requires powers to deal with that situation. I should like to know, however, in what circumstances it is envisaged that my right hon. Friend might have to exercise the powers under clause 5.

Mr. Brittan: If convenient, I shall now try to deal with the various points that have been raised. Some of them involve a consideration of general measures—of amnesty, shorter sentences, and suchlike. I agree very much with the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stain-ton). Whatever the merits or demerits of proposals of that kind, I do not think that a discussion of emergency provisions of the kind that we are now debating is the appropriate occasion to consider, still less to determine, long-term measures.
I am not decrying the importance of the proposals that have been put forward. The individual proposals would have to be considered on their merits. This, however, is not the right occasion to consider them.
I should like to deal first with the point made about section 47 of the 1977 Act relating to partly suspended sentences. The reason why that has not been implemented is that, frankly, we have been so uncertain of the impact on the total prison population. There are a variety of hypotheses about how it would be used. On at least one of those hypo-these, there would be a severe extra strain on the total prison population. That is


a situation that one is reluctant to envisage in the circumstances that have faced Governments of both parties since 1977.
I turn now to the circumstances in which the provision that the Government are putting forward would be used. This topic was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). The answer is that it is impossible to say exactly when it would be necessary to use the provision. It depends very much on the range of other alternatives for which we are taking powers in the Bill. It depends on the availability, for example, of camps in addition to Frankland prison, and it also depends on the actual exercise by the courts of their powers and the extent to which they are influenced by the circular relating to bail and a whole variety of other measures. My right hon. Friend has, however, made clear that he would not operate this provision in any shape or form unless it was necessary to do so.
The point has been made that the provision relates to people already in prison who are to be released, that this is not the problem, and that the problem is getting people into prison rather than out of it. That is not quite the answer, because, apart from the problem of getting people into prison, there is no doubt that the tension within the prisons caused by overcrowding is a major factor in the dispute.
A substantial number of sentenced prisoners are already in police cells. When the Bill is passed, substantial numbers of sentenced prisoners will be placed in the new accommodation that will become available as a result of the Bill's passage. The clause will enable people to be released not only from prison but from the new accommodation.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Surely that is an open encouragement and incitement to prisoners to riot, gesticulate and cause as much trouble as possible, because that will cause the authorities to say that there is trouble and that the people should be let out of the prisons.
People who will go to the new accommodation and police cells will be about to be sentenced, and it is not likely that

they will come up for release during the time that the provision is in force.

Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend is not correct. Tension relates as much to the prison officers as to the prisoners, so m2 hon. Friend's first point is invalid. We are talking about people who are sentenced to short terms of imprisonment. The six-month period is a limit. It is open to my right hon. Friend to decide that people should be released, if it is necessary to use the provision, only at the tail-end of their sentences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked why there should not be a nine-tenths provision. If there were, the longer-term prisoner and therefore the more serious offender would receive greater benefit. If we were driven to use the provision, it would be important to make the protection of the public our paramount consideration. It would be right to operate the provision in favour of the early release of prisoners with a short period of time ahead of them rather than a long period.
My hon. Friend also asked what was meant by prisoners being released earlier, but not more than six months earlier. Complications are caused by parole provisions. Broadly, the provision means what it says. One uses the date at which the person would be released. Parole that is still being considered causes problems. The issue is complicated. Unless the Committee insists, I shall answer the detail in correspondence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked for an assurance that the provision would not be used, if it has to be used at all, as a means of generally letting people out rather than as a means of dealing with the consequences of the dispute. I can assure him that it is not my right hon. Friend's intention to use it in that way. So I hope that the Committee will feel that this power, deeply regrettable though it is to have to ask for it, has been devised so as to enable my right hon. Friend to use it, if necessary, in the most limited way and in the appropriate circumstances. In determining that last point he will have in the forefront of his mind the need to ensure that the people who are released and the periods for which they are released are such as will secure the protection of the public.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend says that this power will be related only to problems arising out of the dispute. The legislation could be reactivated by order from time to time. Will he consider whether words along these lines could be inserted in the clause at a later stage to identify that the power is to deal with the consequences of something like industrial action? My hon. and learned Friend says that the clause could be used to release people not just from prison, but from the approved places. Does that mean that "prison", in the clause, also means prison plus approved places"?

Mr. Brittan: The answer to the second question is "Yes", and to the first "No".

Mr. Taylor: I understood my hon. and learned Friend to say that this clause would be used only in an emergency. Will he put that into the Bill? As now drafted, the Bill gives him the power to use it in any circumstances.

Mr. Brittan: The Bill is designed to deal with this emergency. I have already gone in some detail into the duration of powers under the Bill, namely, that unless the House decides to renew them they will last for one month. I have given my hon. Friend the assurance as to the manner in which my right hon. Friend will exercise those powers, and I think that that is sufficient protection. I am surprised that he should not be content to leave the matter there, given the ability of the House not to renew the powers if it does not wish to, and the clear indication that I have given of how my right hon. Friend proposes to exercise the powers.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Freud: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 25.
I accept that this is an emergency provision, but I do not accept that fundamental injustice, even in the short term, is even remotely justifiable. The insertion of paragraph (b) makes nonsense of penal policy and respect for justice if, by the application of that paragraph,

some people serving a particular sentence for a particular crime in one prison are released earlier because of overcrowding while other prisoners serving similar sentences for similar crimes not being held in overcrowded prisons are kept in custody.
The main preoccupation of prisoners and their families is looking through newspapers for cases comparable with their own and seeing how they were dealt with. I believe that an injustice such as this whereby people who are in one prison are allowed out because of overcrowding with no regard to the sort of crime they have committed or to similar claims for release from prisoners who have committed similar crimes will do the system a great disservice.
I am content with clause 5. This is a rotten Bill and it is a poor clause, but I would not mind keeping quiet on clause 5 if the Minister would give an assurance that paragraph (b) will be deleted. I am sure that he will agree that it does him and his Department little credit.

Mr. Brittan: I can see considerable force in what the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said. It could give rise to feelings of injustice if the power were used in relation to some establishments and not others. I absolutely take that point. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in considering how to exercise that power, if it is necessary to exercise it at all, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take that consideration into account. It would be wrong to remove from him altogether the power to do what the hon. Gentleman wishes him not to do. My right hon. Friend does not want to use it. He hopes that he will not have to use it. He will take the hon. Gentleman's point into account. But there could be circumstances in which it would be necessary or desirable for him to use it in relation to a certain establishment. Therefore, I believe that it would be a mistake to remove the provision from the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

DETENTION IN THE CUSTODY OF A CONSTABLE

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, after 'court' add:
'provided that the place where the person is held is notified either to that person's solicitor or next of kin, and arrangements are made for visiting'.
This is a simple amendment, but clause 6 is an area that we ought to have spent more time on because it is one of the small parts of the Bill which are permanent. The amendment is pretty straightforward. It says that if a constable has the power to detain someone, there must be certainty for the prisoner that either his solicitor or his next of kin are told of the arrangements and that arrangements are made for visiting.
I would have thought that this was an area in which the Minister could accept the amendment so that we could make rapid progress.

Mr. Brittan: I do not think that I can accept the amendment, but I hope that I can give the Committee some reassurance which will be satisfactory.
With regard to notification to solicitors or next of kin, I can give some reassurance. If a person asks for his whereabouts to be notified, the police so notify. Otherwise, I am afraid that the drafting of the amendment is defective. Someone may have neither a solicitor nor a next of kin, and presumably it is not intended to prevent anyone else from being notified on request. Of course, there could be no objection to the notification of anyone who is reasonably named.
As to visiting, the amendment is too vague for it to be appropriate in any way. What arrangements have to be made to satisfy the implied requirement? In practice, bearing in mind the gross overcrowding in police cells, it would be a mistake for anyone to think that the kind of normal visiting arrangements which operate in the prisons when they are operating normally apply. I do not think that one ought to pretend that they do.
For those reasons, I would not advise the Committee to accept the amendment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Those assurances go some way, but I do not think

that they go far enough. As I understand it, in this clause the Minister is asking for powers to continue indefinitely rather than for powers of a temporary nature. If it is to be a continuing power, there ought to be rather more assurances than the Minister has given at this stage.
I do not want to press the amendment any further now, but I hope that the Government will at least look at this point before the Bill goes to the other place to see whether in respect of this small part of the Bill, which will be permanent, the assurances that he has more or less given are shown on the face of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

DURATION EXPIRY AND REVIVAL OF PART I

Mr. Brittan: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order, the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) comes first.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In view of the discussions we had this afternoon, and as much as I could argue that our shorter amendment does exactly the same thing, it is much better at this stage of the game to leave it to the Government.

Mr. Brittan: If that is the consequence of reaching this stage of the game, it is a happier stage to reach than I would otherwise have expected.
I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, leave out "three months" and insert "one month".

The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may discuss the following Government amendment, in page 5, line 40, leave out "three months" and insert "one month".

Mr. Brittan: These Government amendments are designed to implement the changes that I described at some length on Second Reading. They do exactly


that, no more, no less. I hope that, in view of the hour, the Committee will regard it as satisfactory for me to leave the matter at that for the moment, and to answer later any points that arise. The amendments give effect fully to the point that I have explained in some detail on the question of the duration of the Bill. If there are any points that arise in the consideration of the amendments, I shall be happy to answer them.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I say on behalf of the Opposition that the fact that we shall have to look again at the Bill in a month's time if the prison problem is still with us makes it acceptable, and we are grateful to the Government for conceding our request. In the longer term, in a year's time the Government will have to reintroduce the Bill barring clause 6. We thank the Government, but we consider that it is the right thing for them to have done.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

In page 5, line 40, leave out 'three months' and insert 'one month'.

In page 6, line 3, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 6 and insert
'(4) No order under subsection (2)'.

In page 6, line 12, leave out '(b)'.

In page 6, line 16, leave out '40' and insert '7'.

In page 6, line 22, leave out '40' and insert '7'.

In page 6, line 24, at end insert—
'(6A) Subject to subsection (6B) below, Part I of this Act and the preceding provisions

Division No. 479]
AYES
[4.59 am


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunt, David (Wirral)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dover, Denshore
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Berry, Hon Anthony
Eyre, Reginald
Knight, Mrs Jill

Best, Keith
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lang, Ian

Bevan, David Gilroy
Fell, Anthony
Le Marchant, Spencer

Biggs-Davison, John
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Blackburn, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lyell, Nicholas

Braine, Sir Bernard
Gow, Ian
Major, John

Bright, Graham
Gower, Sir Raymond
Marlow, Tony

Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouh N)
Mates, Michael

Brittan, Leon
Grylls, Michael
Mather, Carol

Brooke, Hon Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn
Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Butcher, John
Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony

Carlisle Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren
Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger

Colvin, Michael
Henderson, Barry
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Murphy, Christopher

Costain, Sir Albert
Hooson, Tom
Myles, David

Dorrell, Stephen
Hordern, Peter
Neale, Gerrard

of this section shall by virtue of this subsection be repealed as from the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.

(6B) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument postpone or further postpone the time as from which the repeal provided for in subsection (6A) above is to have effect; but any particular order under this subsection shall not postpone or further postpone that time beyond the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the coming into operation of that order.

(6C) Every order under subsection (6B) above—

(a) shall be laid before Parliament; and
(b) shall cease to have effect at the expiry of a period of 40 days beginning with the date on which it was made unless, before the expiry of that period, the order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, but without prejudice to anything previously done or to the making of a new order.

In reckoning for the purposes of this subsection any period of 40 days, no account shall be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.'

In page 6, line 25, after 'expiry' insert 'or repeal'.—[Mr. Brittan.]

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading):

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 7.

Needham, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thompson, Donald

Nelson, Anthony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Normanton, Tom
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Tripper, David

Onslow, Cranley
Silvester, Fred
Wakeham, John

Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Sims, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William

Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)

Parris, Matthew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Wheeler, John

Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stainton, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Proctor, K Harvey
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wickenden, Keith

Raison, Timothy
Stevens, Martin
Wilkinson, John

Rathbone, Tim
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wolfson, Mark

Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stradling Thomas, J.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. David Waddington and

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Mr. Robert Boscawen

Shaw, Cites (Pudsey)

NOES


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Soley, Clive

Cryer, Bob


English, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Flannery, Martin
Mr. John Tilley and

Mikardo, Ian
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Richardson, Jo

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

PAPER-MAKING INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Gavin Strang: It is appropriate that the first debate on the many industrial problems now affecting our country should be on the paper-making industry. I am sure all Members of Parliament are well aware of the scale of the crisis affecting this industry. Indeed, every hon. Member received a valuable publication, produced by the Society of Graphic and Allied Trades, which detailed the decline of the industry and focused attention on the enormity of the current crisis.
It is true that the paper-making industry has been in some sort of decline for a long time. During the 1960s, changes in the tariff arrangements, through our relationship with the European Free Trade Association, adversely affected the industry. The major paper mill in my constituency, the Inveresk paper mill, closed as long ago as 1971. It would have been bad enough if that rate of decline had continued into 1980. However, we now face a situation that is much worse. It is catastrophic. It is impossible to overstate the scale of the crisis that afflicts the whole paper and board industry. It is a direct consequence of the Government's economic policy.
The problems are the same as those afflicting other industries, but the Government's policy militates more severely against the paper-making industry. I refer in particular to the Government's obsession with monetarism, which has led to an overvalued pound and high interest rates. I also refer to excessively high energy prices. There is no doubt that the Government's economic policies are inflicting immense damage on the industry. They are directly responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs.
Since the Second World War, the case for investing in timber through the Forestry Commission has been based not on the need for wood in order to build ships for war but on the need—accepted by Governments of both parties—to invest in British timber in order to reduce imports. The case for investment—whether State investment through the Forestry Commission, or private investment that is encouraged through taxation concessions—has been based on the need to produce more timber to help our balance of payments.
We now face a preposterous situation. Instead of producing timber for our own wood-processing industries, the Forestry Commission is producing timber for export. Only this week, I saw a reference in the Financial Times to near boom conditions in the ports of Invergordon, Montrose and Grangemouth. As a result of closures, wood is being shipped out of the country. One may find that £1,000,000 worth of wood has been shipped out and reimported in the form of newsprint, at a cost of about £10,000,000. That is economic lunacy.
The immediate short-term impact on the Forestry Commission is negligible, as long as it can obtain a reasonable price for the export of timber. However, it is contrary to the long-term interests of the Forestry Commission to be so dependent on export markets. It is in the interest of the Forestry Commission, and in the national interest, to sustain and increase our capacity for the consumption and processing of home-based timber.
I shall mention two closures in particular. The first is a fait accompli. The second is a proposed closure that can, and must, be stopped. I refer in the first instance to the closure of the Fort William chemical pulp mill at Corpach. I raised that issue in April during a debate on the forestry industry. At that time the Scottish Office was still trying to save that mill.
Consolidated Bathurst, a big Canadian company, working with Wiggins Teape, tried, with Government help, to come up with the major investment in newsprint capacity which would have been an important and valuable development at Fort William. That failed, and I believe that the Government must accept a substantial responsibility for the failure. Many of the arguments that were made about the wood being too expensive and that it was all the Forestry Commission's fault have been shown to be wholly unjustified.
The fact is that it is overwhelmingly in the interests of the Highlands of Scotland that this indigenous industry—wood processing—should be developed and encouraged. Surely we should use the revenues from North Sea oil to invest in new capacity for these industries which will be with us long after the North Sea oil is dry. The negotiations were a total failure, the mill is now closed and, instead of Fort William being seen as an expanding development for new industries in association with timber production, the whole movement is in the other direction, and established channels are being fixed whereby the timber from the Forestry Commission and the private sector is now moving out in huge quantities to Scandinavia and elsewhere.
I ask the Government to give some sort of undertaking about Fort William. Are they saying that they are prepared to stand by and see a complete reversal of

what the Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Forestry Commission and the local community all wanted for Fort William, namely, the development of this important indigenous industry?
I turn now to the proposed closure of the Bowater mill at Ellesmere Port. I believe that this is a major test case of the Government's commitment in this area. First, I think the Government have, to some extent, accepted that they have a responsibility to maintain some newsprint production in this country. If that Ellesmere Port closure goes through and Reed's mill at Aylesbury closes, the proportion of newsprint consumed in this country that is produced in Britain will be about one-eighth. We shall see the almost total elimination of newsprint production in this country, and the almost total dependence of Fleet Street on imported newsprint. Surely the Government accept that it is not in the national interest to have virtually all our newsprint imported.
Of course the major consideration at Ellesmere Port is employment. That is why the unions are still fighting this closure. There have been suggestions in some quarters that it is Bowater's fault, and that the package put forward by the Government is adequate to save this mill. Bowater's position is that the package is inadequate. But at least the Prime Minister had a meeting with the interested parties and accepted that something should be done. She did not take the hard-line, non-interventionist stance. The Government have put forward a package, both in relation to substantial regional development aid for a new mill, and. more significantly, some aid on revenue costs.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does my hon. Friend accept that, following the meeting on 6 August with the National Economic Development Council on the energy price component in this problem, and the undertaking given by the CBI that it would examine closely the whole subject of energy prices in the United Kingdom, it is for the Minister to tell the House to what extent he will accept any recommendations that the CBI may make on energy pricing? If the CBI tells the Government that it believes that there should be a different industrial energy pricing structure, will


they accept that, in line with the comments of the Secretary of State for Industry in his letter to Mr. Adams, when he said that the Department would be closely involved in the examination of energy prices?

Mr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is significant that one of the sources of assistance that the Government put to Bowater at Ellesmere Port concerned the price of coal. It was estimated by the Department of Industry that the price reductions would lead to a saving of £2¼ million in a full year. The Government accept that they have to tackle the problem by acting directly on revenue and energy costs. Although it will not solve the problem, the quick way in which the Government can help is by tackling the ridiculous situation. We have a good indigenous energy supply of gas, oil and coal, yet our industries are paying higher prices for their energy, thus affecting the whole cost structure, than their competitors in other European countries, not to mention North America.
It is not sufficient for the Government to say that they have put forward a package and are trying to help. That failed at Corpach. That mill closed. It is no good doing the same at Ellesmere Port. It does not matter what the Government offer. All that counts is whether the jobs and that newsprint production capacity are saved. I hope that we shall have an assurance that the Government are not prepared to sit back and allow the closure to go ahead. They should make clear to Bowaters that there must be an agreed level of support and Government intervention to allow new investment to go ahead and production to be sustained at Ellesmere Port. I concentrated on the two closures because they are so important to employment in the Highlands and Merseyside and they have accounted for a large proportion of the Forestry Commission's output. There have been numerous closures throughout the country. About 800 jobs at the St. Anne's board mill at Bristol have been lost. Paper mill after paper mill has closed in the past year. Since the Prime Minister met representatives of the industry more than 1,000 redundancies have been announced. We are witnessing the almost complete decimation of our capacity in that important sector.
The Government cannot stand by. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) initiated a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill and the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) also spoke about the matter. Although there was an important debate before the Summer Recess on the problems of the paper-making industry and there was a meeting between the Prime Minister and representatives of the industry, the situation is getting worse. The rate of decline is accelerating. More and more efficient mills, which cannot compete because of the economic factors loaded against them, are closing. The Government cannot stand by. They must be prepared to intervene. We need a reversal of their entire economic policy to help manufacturing industry generally, but we cannot wait for that. The paper industry is a special case. The Government must take that on board before it is too late.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on his good fortune in having another Adjournment debate so soon, although we would both wish that it had taken place at an earlier hour. I am grateful to him for enabling the House to discuss once again the situation in the paper and board industry. We considered the industry during our debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill in August, but I know that many hon. Members are concerned—including those with mills or forests in their constituencies—about the continuing situation.
I note the presence in the Chamber, even at this hour, of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) who raised the matter in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate.
The Government have continued to keep in close and continuing touch with the industry, and not only through my Department, where my right hon. Friend and the Minister of State, Lord Trenchard, have met representatives. The industry has also seen the Minister for Trade to discuss its concerns on the trade front. Moreover, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, the Prime Minister received a delegation to discuss in


particular the problems of the newsprint industry.
Like other industries, and this will be so until the benefits of our policies have had time to work through the economic system, the paper and board industry is having to face a difficult combination of economic circumstances. Demand is depressed in most sectors and many mills are working below capacity. Our contacts with the industry have revealed encouraging examples of companies making efforts to improve efficiency and, despite current problems, considering seriously the need for investment.
The hon. Member referred to what he called the unique decline in the industry. I do not seek in any way to underestimate the degree of contraction in the industry. Indeed, I do not underestimate in any way the extreme competitive difficulties which the industry faces, for the reasons the hon. Member spelt out. But it has to be said that in the 1975 recession production of paper and board, including newsprint, fell by no less than 20·6 per cent. over the figure for the previous year. That was a more substantial year-on-year drop than we are likely to experience in 1980. I accept that, whatever the relative situation between the decline of one time and the decline of another, this is a position that causes grave concern to hon. Members, particularly those with mills in their constituencies, or, as is the case with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, where the Forestry Commission is involved. Then the problem is much wider in its implication than it is for particular constituencies.
The hon. Member drew attention to the situation facing the industry and laid the blame on what he called the monetarist policies of the Government in creating an impossibly strong pound. He must now, bearing in mind the passage of time since we last debated the problems of the country's economy before the Summer Recess, recognise that what he and his colleagues then referred to as the theory of monetarism is proving to be a practical reality. Earlier this year industry faced the horrifying consequences of a level of inflation which had risen to over 21 per cent. and was nearly 22 per cent. There were all the consequences for

industry of a cash hunger. Businesses were needing more money to do the same volume of turnover. There were horrifying consequences for their borrowing, and in many cases there was an inability on the part of some companies to borrow to the extent that they needed simply to sustain the level of trade they had been doing earlier. Inflation is undoubtedly the worst enemy of business growth that (here is.
The hon. Member for Workington will recall making speeches against the Government's policies for dealing with inflation during the passage of the Industry Bill earlier this year. Now we find that, far from inflation of 21·9 per cent., for the last three months the rate has been down to single figures. The policy is working. The policy is laying the foundations for genuine business growth.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said that the strong pound made it difficult for businesses to survive. I accept that the high level of the pound makes it difficult for businesses to compete in the export trade unless they have the utmost efficiency. Businesses seeking to compete with imports from abroad face equal strains and difficulty. They have to be efficient and they need restraint in their costs, including their wage costs. But the hon. Gentleman is as familiar with that need as I am.
We talk with pride of a strong pound—though we understand the difficulties that it causes—and that contrasts with the efforts of previous Governments who had to rush around to try to stop the pound from falling out of the bottom of the market. with all the inflationary consequences that that would have produced.
The strong pound is caused principally by our unique combination of a stable society and an oil well in our back garden. To the treasurer of a small country overseas or a major international company, those two strengths give us a unique combination that encourages people to put their money in sterling. A further factor is the high interest rates that the Government are employing in an endeavour to get inflation under control. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not get the matter out of proportion and suggest that the level of sterling is within the gift of the Government to do


with as they wish. It is not. The international market determines the value of our currency. It is not determined by what we wish it to be—up or down.
The hon. Member raised worrying points in connection with the Forestry Commission. The closure of the pulp mill at Fort William and the closures in prospect at Ellesmere Port and Bristol will obviously be regarded as a blow to forestry. The commission is rightly concerned to retain the industry's infrastructure, marketing and transport, as well as to mitigate the effects of the closures on employment. In co-operation with the private sector, the commission has been successful in securing export outlets for small round wood.
I noted that the hon. Gentleman expressed almost distaste for the prosperity that has come to certain ports on the North-East coast of Scotland. That distaste is not shared by those involved in the port activities.
Of course, the Government would sooner see value being added to the wood here, but it has to be done profitably and it is important that the hon. Gentleman should note that the export contracts are deliberately being kept short so that we do not prejudice the establishment of any new wood-processing activities in Britain. It is for the industry to seek out new commercial possibilities, and the Government are willing, to consider with it any viable proposals. I should have preferred to hear such proposals from the hon. Gentleman.
We have no reason to believe that the Forestry Commission is not getting comparable returns on exports with those it would have achieved if it had continued to sell in the United Kingdom. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman about the consequences for the commission.
I am keenly aware of the position at Fort William. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is deeply concerned about the consequences for employment in a somewhat isolated community. It is one of the areas of the Scottish economy that cause my right hon. Friend great concern, because he recognises, in a human way, the effect on those who lose their jobs at a time of world recession.
However, the pulp mill has been making heavy losses, and the consultants engaged by Wiggins Teape confirm that it could not be made profitable, even after substantial investment. The alternative suggested by the consultants, of establishing a new pulp and newsprint mill at Fort William, was thoroughly explored by the company with a potential Canadian partner. The Government indicated that a significant package of financial assistance could be available for this development, but the companies finally decided that, even with Government help, the newsprint project could not produce adequate profits to be a commercial proposition.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland continues to regard the identification of alternative employment opportunities at Fort William and the search for new wood-using projects in the Highlands as a whole, as one of his priorities. The Wiggins Teape mill at Fort William is continuing in production, and I am aware of its importance for the local economy—indeed, an importance highlighted by the tragedy of the pulp mill situation. I understand that Wiggins Teape regards this operation as an important part of its whole activities.
I turn to the points that have been made on the subject of Bowater. It is not enough for me to say that we debated this almost as the House was rising in the early hours shortly before the recess, and that the situation has unfolded as the hon. Member for Workington foresaw at the time and as I foresaw and, tragically, had to accept. The Government were prepared to cobble together with the company a substantial package to make worthwhile significant technological advance and a new investment programme to create a new future for the company there, but the commercial decision-making was for the company, and, in spite of the significant public support that we were prepared to give, it did not feel that it was commercially viable and would secure an adequate pay-off in the time that it thought to be commercially right.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What about the CBI?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is of course referring to the energy question


that he raised in his intervention. I do not wish to fail to deal with that.
Energy prices are crucial to a significant number of industries in this country, but probably nowhere of greater importance than for this industry. The matter was discussed by the National Economic Development Council at its last meeting. At that time the representatives of a number of industries feared that the price being asked was too high, whereas the Department of Energy took the view that the prices in which it had a hand were those ruling among our principal competitors on the Continent. There was a difference of opinion, and the CBI was asked whether it would co-ordinate and collect the views of industry, with practical

examples to demonstrate whether there was unfairness. We are waiting for the CBI to provide that information for us to consider. It was asked to give the evidence.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would give an undertaking that the CBI's views would be accepted. It would be extraordinary for a Minister to do that—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, the DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to Six o'clock a.m..